Cyclic ops

[Hogeo]

I've been researching it for a few years, and I'm finally able to form these opinions.

Every time I learn about various actual operating methods, I am amazed at ED's attitude of claiming to have been making "flight simulators" for 15 long years.

The word simulator is given to something that virtually reproduces a real situation, so if DCS World is a simulator, there can be no operations that do not exist in reality.

Aircraft carriers never perform launch/recovery operations while sailing in a straight line. They always set up a diversion airport, stay in an area of sea where they can reach it in an emergency, and perform launch/recovery operations while turning.

And aircraft never take off or land while heading downwind.

The only place where aircraft carriers which takeoff and landing operations are performed on an aircraft carrier that sails forever in a straight line, or where takeoff and landing can be performed even when heading downwind are allowed to appear is in a shooting game that does not need to pursue realism, such as Ace Combat.

Despite this, DCS World's Supercarrier, which is called a flight simulator, only has a shooter-like aircraft carrier.

What does this mean?

If only shooter-like modules are available, ED should stop calling DCS World a flight simulator. Instead, ED should call DCS World a shooter game.

ED should not scam people into paying high prices by making them believe that they can experience a real war in the game by making them watch promotional videos.

But ED will argue:

"Even starting an aircraft engine is a lot of steps, and can players do it? If it's not reasonably simplified, no one will play it."

So what percentage of DCS World is realistic?

I've been saying for years that it's not realistic to be able to take off and land on a downwind-bound aircraft carrier. And this is common sense in the aviation, and it will never be operated like that in real life.

But ED still hasn't abolished it.

It's true that in reality, it may be possible to ignore the tower's instructions, or to take off and land downwind on a runway without a tower.

It's very interesting that they don't reproduce the most common operations, but they do faithfully reproduce the ones that are rarely performed.

I can only think that ED is deceiving people by calling DCS World, a shooting game that is far from reality, a "simulator" under the pretext of "simplifying it for the players".

You may say, "If you think so, you just need to stop playing DCS World. ED is not forcing you to buy or play mods. And even though you complain to us like that, you recently bought new maps and mods. It's you who should realize your own contradiction."

If ED claims like that, it must be understood that they are confessing that "ED continues to sell mods while knowing that they are defrauding people's curiosity."

[Jackjack171]

2 hours ago, Hogeo said:

I've been researching it for a few years, and I'm finally able to form these opinions.

Every time I learn about various actual operating methods, I am amazed at ED's attitude of claiming to have been making "flight simulators" for 15 long years.

The word simulator is given to something that virtually reproduces a real situation, so if DCS World is a simulator, there can be no operations that do not exist in reality.

Aircraft carriers never perform launch/recovery operations while sailing in a straight line. They always set up a diversion airport, stay in an area of sea where they can reach it in an emergency, and perform launch/recovery operations while turning.

And aircraft never take off or land while heading downwind.

The only place where aircraft carriers which takeoff and landing operations are performed on an aircraft carrier that sails forever in a straight line, or where takeoff and landing can be performed even when heading downwind are allowed to appear is in a shooting game that does not need to pursue realism, such as Ace Combat.

Despite this, DCS World's Supercarrier, which is called a flight simulator, only has a shooter-like aircraft carrier.

What does this mean?

If only shooter-like modules are available, ED should stop calling DCS World a flight simulator. Instead, ED should call DCS World a shooter game.

ED should not scam people into paying high prices by making them believe that they can experience a real war in the game by making them watch promotional videos.

But ED will argue:

"Even starting an aircraft engine is a lot of steps, and can players do it? If it's not reasonably simplified, no one will play it."

So what percentage of DCS World is realistic?

I've been saying for years that it's not realistic to be able to take off and land on a downwind-bound aircraft carrier. And this is common sense in the aviation, and it will never be operated like that in real life.

But ED still hasn't abolished it.

It's true that in reality, it may be possible to ignore the tower's instructions, or to take off and land downwind on a runway without a tower.

It's very interesting that they don't reproduce the most common operations, but they do faithfully reproduce the ones that are rarely performed.

I can only think that ED is deceiving people by calling DCS World, a shooting game that is far from reality, a "simulator" under the pretext of "simplifying it for the players".

You may say, "If you think so, you just need to stop playing DCS World. ED is not forcing you to buy or play mods. And even though you complain to us like that, you recently bought new maps and mods. It's you who should realize your own contradiction."

If ED claims like that, it must be understood that they are confessing that "ED continues to sell mods while knowing that they are defrauding people's curiosity."

For the record, I'm a retired flight deck chief. Contrary to what you said, we launch and recover into the wind. We have to wait for the ship to steady up when we do it! The ship is on a PIM (position of intended movement). When flight ops commence, the ship HAS to turn into the wind. There are variables such as: Helo blades folding and unfolding, the E-2's and C-2's need a certain amount of wind. When pilots go up on deck, they have to stop by Flight deck control to give the Shooters a weight chit. The Shooters have to calculate the WOD (wind over deck) along with Asymmetry, (fuel and ordnance carried and on what wing stations) Which CAT is suitable for which aircraft (can't just put any aircraft on any catapult like you can in DCS). One other example, I can't shoot a Jet past a prop because the exhaust will flame out the prop aircraft. If an E-2 is landing, I cannot have hot exhaust blowing into the LA (landing area) because if the prop A/C bolters, it will fly right through that exhaust and flame it out. DCS doesn't simulate this!

When we are finished shooting, the recovery of the previous cycle is commencing, sometimes simultaneously! After the last aircraft traps, more often than not, the ship will make a turn and change course again. She may make several turns, but in order to get the winds up, she HAS to turn back into the wind. Now, the catapults are designed to shoot in a no wind situation, but that is not optimal nor favored. When the next cycle starts, she shall turn again, if she already hasn't, wash, rinse, repeat.

In all honesty, I'm surprised you posted that Air plan. Those things are FOUO and should never leave the boat! 

I've stated this before, ED is doing the best it can but tackling an Air Plan, let alone cyclic ops is a complex feat. I'm not surprised that it hasn't been replicated and that's ok. The average person has no idea the complex nature of flight ops at sea. YouTube and such don't count and doesn't help, it's like the Matrix, you have to live it to believe it!

If you have any questions, I'm open to conversation but your info about flight operations is in error. IMHO, DCS is just fine! Yes, there is always room for improvement, but it is the better sim out right now, unless one is looking for the Ace Combat type of stuff. ATC in DCS has been my biggest peeve since forever, yet I choose to play it the way I need to play it. DCS is a sandbox and the choice is yours!  I'm not sure about the defrauded and scammed part either. If you do, I'd suggest a divestment! It's a buyers' market and people are free to spend their money at their leisure. 

It never ceases to amaze me at the number of DCS players that claim to love aviation, yet one can always tell whether they did the heavy lifting on anything that they claim. There is a lot of information out there. Some of it is hogwash. I think there's maybe too much access to info as most have gotten lazy and interpret what they see. For example, the amount of folks that think a Block 30/40/50 Viper are one and the same (just go through the Forums). Or which countries fly which models, and the one ED simulates. It's not that difficult, yet it seems it is. 

Anyway, feel free to ask me any questions about CV Flight ops and please give ED a break! The stuff that they've created, a few others and I have waited a lifetime for.

[BIGNEWY]

folks I have had a tidy up here in the thread, please remember our forum rules which can be found at the top of the page. 

thank you 

[BIGNEWY]

I will add that cyclic ops is not something we have advertised or planned for, in several messages over the years we have specifically said they are not possible as it would require dynamic repositioning of active and static aircraft which would complicate matters even further for the deck. 

Thank you 

[draconus]

On 7/18/2025 at 6:15 PM, Hogeo said:

The word simulator is given to something that virtually reproduces a real situation, so if DCS World is a simulator, there can be no operations that do not exist in reality.

You're confusing aircraft simulator with following procedures simulation and expecting too much from the game. Yes, DCS is study type combat flight simulator, a sub genre of video game. It's a kind of sandbox. You are given aircraft, physics and the world. You decide what happens there. It's made for entertainment. Some things won't be modeled due to different reasons like current PC performance, time and money to create it, scope of the project or even military secrecy.

[Silver_Dragon]

On 7/18/2025 at 9:18 PM, Jackjack171 said:

For the record, I'm a retired flight deck chief. Contrary to what you said, we launch and recover into the wind. We have to wait for the ship to steady up when we do it! The ship is on a PIM (position of intended movement). When flight ops commence, the ship HAS to turn into the wind. There are variables such as: Helo blades folding and unfolding, the E-2's and C-2's need a certain amount of wind. When pilots go up on deck, they have to stop by Flight deck control to give the Shooters a weight chit. The Shooters have to calculate the WOD (wind over deck) along with Asymmetry, (fuel and ordnance carried and on what wing stations) Which CAT is suitable for which aircraft (can't just put any aircraft on any catapult like you can in DCS). One other example, I can't shoot a Jet past a prop because the exhaust will flame out the prop aircraft. If an E-2 is landing, I cannot have hot exhaust blowing into the LA (landing area) because if the prop A/C bolters, it will fly right through that exhaust and flame it out. DCS doesn't simulate this!

When we are finished shooting, the recovery of the previous cycle is commencing, sometimes simultaneously! After the last aircraft traps, more often than not, the ship will make a turn and change course again. She may make several turns, but in order to get the winds up, she HAS to turn back into the wind. Now, the catapults are designed to shoot in a no wind situation, but that is not optimal nor favored. When the next cycle starts, she shall turn again, if she already hasn't, wash, rinse, repeat.

In all honesty, I'm surprised you posted that Air plan. Those things are FOUO and should never leave the boat! 

I've stated this before, ED is doing the best it can but tackling an Air Plan, let alone cyclic ops is a complex feat. I'm not surprised that it hasn't been replicated and that's ok. The average person has no idea the complex nature of flight ops at sea. YouTube and such don't count and doesn't help, it's like the Matrix, you have to live it to believe it!

If you have any questions, I'm open to conversation but your info about flight operations is in error. IMHO, DCS is just fine! Yes, there is always room for improvement, but it is the better sim out right now, unless one is looking for the Ace Combat type of stuff. ATC in DCS has been my biggest peeve since forever, yet I choose to play it the way I need to play it. DCS is a sandbox and the choice is yours!  I'm not sure about the defrauded and scammed part either. If you do, I'd suggest a divestment! It's a buyers' market and people are free to spend their money at their leisure. 

It never ceases to amaze me at the number of DCS players that claim to love aviation, yet one can always tell whether they did the heavy lifting on anything that they claim. There is a lot of information out there. Some of it is hogwash. I think there's maybe too much access to info as most have gotten lazy and interpret what they see. For example, the amount of folks that think a Block 30/40/50 Viper are one and the same (just go through the Forums). Or which countries fly which models, and the one ED simulates. It's not that difficult, yet it seems it is. 

Anyway, feel free to ask me any questions about CV Flight ops and please give ED a break! The stuff that they've created, a few others and I have waited a lifetime for.

I see several interesting points that wouldn't be a bad idea to implement on the SuperCarrier, but as a retired aircraft carrier, what other situations would be interesting to simulate on the deck of an aircraft carrier?

I was intrigued by your point about aircraft not being sent to the hangar. Another point that isn't currently simulated is helicopter operations.

[Hogeo]

If ED wants to continue using the phrase "the most detailed and realistic simulation" to describe the module, ED must fully implement carrier operations that is not a hard thing for ED to do, even if it means rebuilding the Supercarrier from scratch.

We bought the Supercarrier because we trusted ED, and we're stating our opinions on the wish list.

ED should not treat your customers' feelings with contempt.
 

[Jackjack171]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

I see several interesting points that wouldn't be a bad idea to implement on the SuperCarrier, but as a retired aircraft carrier, what other situations would be interesting to simulate on the deck of an aircraft carrier?

I was intrigued by your point about aircraft not being sent to the hangar. Another point that isn't currently simulated is helicopter operations.

There are so many things that I personally would like to see. Cyclic ops is a no go IMHO as it is just too dynamic and the ins and outs are vast. There are so many variables. Keep in mind while all of this is happening, you have deck personnel of all colors going in every direction that you can think of, while trying to not get ran over, blown over or decapitated! I'll cut right to what I think could/should be implemented and would be within the scope of things.

1. Arm/De-arm of weapons. When an aircraft gets into position on the catapult, red shirted ordnance personnel have to arm the weapon BEFORE the launch bar engages the shuttle. When an aircraft traps, before the wings fold, those ordnance personnel line up aft of JBD 1 and 2 on one side, and an opposite line on the other. The aircraft clears the LA and stops just long enough for the arming pins to be inserted and missile caps to be put on. After that, the director tells the pilot to fold the wings and sends the aircraft to the parking spot. Another thing DCS doesn't simulate is proper parking. We usually send recovering aircraft to the bow, or to the Fighter line. Not aft to the fantail. That happens later!
2. Catapult end speed. Currently in DCS you can get shot off at any weight and any load. As I stated earlier, IRL the Shooters get a weight chit to calculate how much Oomph an aircraft will get to get airborne. There are many variations to aircraft weight, and they are usually close but still different as you can imagine. Contrary to what some think, burner shots don't always happen! I've seen more Mil shots than burner shots. That too is weight dependent. 5 wets' usually (obviously) use burner. Growlers are usually heavy also!
3. Better LSO interaction. I'd like the LSO to recognize a Touch and go from a bolter. More sugar calls. If I perform a CAT-trap-cat or want to have my own personal CQ session, I shouldn't have to contact CATCC every time. 
4. Recovery tanker. There used to always be a recovery tanker circling overhead. Sometimes IMHO, the S-3 in game ventures way too far out.
5.Beter CATCC interaction. If you are bingo on the ball, CATCC directs you to the hawking tanker. 
6.One Shooter one the bow and on the waist. Currently in DCS there are Shooters for each CAT. IRL there is one on the bow and one on the waist. Anything else would be a conflict. Simultaneous launches don't happen IRL. While there can be an aircraft going off of the waist and one off of the bow very near simultaneously, they are kept staggered for safety issues. Hence the clearing turns! They never go off of the bow at the same time, as I've seen in some Youtubers videos. When this is coordinated and authorized, a covey launch can be performed. This is an aircraft leaving the bow and leaving the waist nearly simultaneously. This is done to save time trying to form up with the wingman. But it has to be coordinated.
7. Last but not least, the Barricade. IDK if that's too much but I think it's way more doable than Cyclic flight ops!

I'd like to see Helo ops, but I first would like to see a new helo model. Our SH-60 needs some love, or we need a new MH-60R/MH-60S!

I hope I answered your questions. Please feel free to ask more. 
 

[Hogeo]

I'm sorry.
I read Jackjack171's post and realized that I was also posting things that were disrupting other people's wishes.
I deleted those my posts.
I may have just wanted to show off some knowledge that I had gained.
I'm grateful to Jackjack171 for giving me this awareness and opportunity.