Jump to content

Proposed ED Carrier…?


rkk01

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Pikey said:

If only we can get 3D modellers and artists to grow on trees. Maybe 'bundles' is a way forward.

 

Sublet the ones from Razbam, they seem to have an excess. 

  • Like 1

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"you say when there’s more flyable modules maybe it’ll be time for a “BOB pack”, “defence of the Reich” pack etc with a flyable and AI bundled together."

Lotsa wishful thinking, there. When has ED done bundles? That's IL'2's thing. Doubt if you'll see it in DCS. BOB pack? Don't hold your breath.

If you did, you'd definitely be passing out. It takes so long to do one DCS quality airplane that a whole pack at once is a silly thing to be wishing for. I'm into quality and not quantity, Anyway, so I'm fine with that. Rather than wishing for a whole slew of airplanes, I'm excitedly waiting for that Corsair. 

And I haven't heard about this F6F you guys are talking about. More wishful thinking?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah ED really has to get a handle on their Core game really. The current engine is pretty bad in many respects, from AI, damage modeling, sensor simulation and so forth, and if they really want to "grow" they really need to figure that out.

 

Take a "simple" case. A ww2 era destroyer.

 

Damage model will have to take into account "compartments", then the main weapons 5" guns or whatever which can be used for AA or ASW, then the various AA mounts. And then the ASUW suite of depth charges, sonar etc, and then the various integration between those systems.

 

For "sensors":

1. its gonna have an air search radar, probably feeing the AA guns some info.

2. Its gonna have a surface search radar, feeing the 5" guns

3. Most of the lighter AAA are gonna be independent of that with their own optical FCS and crew quality if we are honest.

4. Sonar, both active and passive.

 

So for ED to model this anywhere realistically in DCS is frankly a nightmare

 

They have to model the AAA flowchart of detection by radar, queuing, any sort of radar guided FCS for the big guns. And then model all the other "other" AAA platforms on the ship, which might be cued by radar, but are gonna prosecute independence engagements based on their optical sensors.

 

Then lets say a bomb hits and knocks out what? The forward guns? The radar? the sonar? etc.... How does that damage effect systems XYZABC. 

 

Currently we have literally hit points and health bars for this, zero granularity, zero "simulation". All of the AI gunners can do PHD level cals in their head in real time to zap the baddie (you).

 

Now multiply this across IDK what 50 ships that are relevant to WW2, including a decently detailed 3d model?

 

And it gets vastly more complicated in the modern scenarios. IMO DCS has no relevant "modern" ship models at this point with their HP systems or their sensor modeling.

  • Like 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good question. We're getting the Marianas, a Hellcat has been hinted, but people will need a carrier, and right now the only one on the horizon is the one coming with the corsair. But those who don't own the Corsair can only fly their Hellcat from land bases? I doubt it. I'm pretty sure we'll see one from ED too. Maybe as an expansion of the Supercarrier module? Or the WWII assets pack? Perhaps the latter would make more sense.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah ED really has to get a handle on their Core game really. The current engine is pretty bad in many respects, from AI, damage modeling, sensor simulation and so forth, and if they really want to "grow" they really need to figure that out.

 

Take a "simple" case. A ww2 era destroyer.

 

Damage model will have to take into account "compartments", then the main weapons 5" guns or whatever which can be used for AA or ASW, then the various AA mounts. And then the ASUW suite of depth charges, sonar etc, and then the various integration between those systems.

 

For "sensors":

1. its gonna have an air search radar, probably feeing the AA guns some info.

2. Its gonna have a surface search radar, feeing the 5" guns

3. Most of the lighter AAA are gonna be independent of that with their own optical FCS and crew quality if we are honest.

4. Sonar, both active and passive.

 

So for ED to model this anywhere realistically in DCS is frankly a nightmare

 

They have to model the AAA flowchart of detection by radar, queuing, any sort of radar guided FCS for the big guns. And then model all the other "other" AAA platforms on the ship, which might be cued by radar, but are gonna prosecute independence engagements based on their optical sensors.

 

Then lets say a bomb hits and knocks out what? The forward guns? The radar? the sonar? etc.... How does that damage effect systems XYZABC. 

 

Currently we have literally hit points and health bars for this, zero granularity, zero "simulation". All of the AI gunners can do PHD level cals in their head in real time to zap the baddie (you).

 

Now multiply this across IDK what 50 ships that are relevant to WW2, including a decently detailed 3d model?

 

And it gets vastly more complicated in the modern scenarios. IMO DCS has no relevant "modern" ship models at this point with their HP systems or their sensor modeling.


What you’re talking about is the detail needed for a WW2 naval sim, DCS is a flight sim. It’d be great to have ships with that level of AI, systems and damage modelling but I really don’t think it’s a realistic aspiration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What you’re talking about is the detail needed for a WW2 naval sim, DCS is a flight sim. It’d be great to have ships with that level of AI, systems and damage modelling but I really don’t think it’s a realistic aspiration."

 

Yeah, and I don't see it as necessary. As you said, it's a flight sim. I don't want it turned into War Thunder....not that there's a danger of that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah ED really has to get a handle on their Core game really. The current engine is pretty bad in many respects, from AI, damage modeling, sensor simulation and so forth, and if they really want to "grow" they really need to figure that out.

 

Take a "simple" case. A ww2 era destroyer.

 

Damage model will have to take into account "compartments", then the main weapons 5" guns or whatever which can be used for AA or ASW, then the various AA mounts. And then the ASUW suite of depth charges, sonar etc, and then the various integration between those systems.

 

For "sensors":

1. its gonna have an air search radar, probably feeing the AA guns some info.

2. Its gonna have a surface search radar, feeing the 5" guns

3. Most of the lighter AAA are gonna be independent of that with their own optical FCS and crew quality if we are honest.

4. Sonar, both active and passive.

 

So for ED to model this anywhere realistically in DCS is frankly a nightmare

 

They have to model the AAA flowchart of detection by radar, queuing, any sort of radar guided FCS for the big guns. And then model all the other "other" AAA platforms on the ship, which might be cued by radar, but are gonna prosecute independence engagements based on their optical sensors.

 

Then lets say a bomb hits and knocks out what? The forward guns? The radar? the sonar? etc.... How does that damage effect systems XYZABC. 

 

Currently we have literally hit points and health bars for this, zero granularity, zero "simulation". All of the AI gunners can do PHD level cals in their head in real time to zap the baddie (you).

 

Now multiply this across IDK what 50 ships that are relevant to WW2, including a decently detailed 3d model?

 

And it gets vastly more complicated in the modern scenarios. IMO DCS has no relevant "modern" ship models at this point with their HP systems or their sensor modeling.

 

If you like build a real Ship Damage modeling, can be make a very hard of complexity. That has a x100 compared with the actual WW2 modeling:
- Make realistic WW2 armour penetrations include AP / HE amunitions and fuzes.

- Heavy calibre artillery rates and dispersions.
- A complex over surface and submerge damage model with compartements, damage teams, fire and flooding propagation.

- and more..... far away.
That can be need a second "ship module" outside of supercarrier only to build all complex systems on a WW2 ship. In fact that can require a new dedicate team, outside of the Modern / WW2 aircrafts, only dedicates to build sistems, weapons and phisics to the naval enviroment.

 

That is not only put hundred of "funny 3D model" without a team make progress behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mogster said:

“Perfection is the enemy of good” n’ all…

 

I mean the problem is the current system isn't "good" in fact quite the opposite. I don't mind having some simplifications, in fact I realize they are neccesary. But for example I can't even get a ship to turn off its radar due to an incoming ARM shot, well thats a problem, or when that ARM shot doesn't actually damage the target? Never mind that some modern ships are gonna have multiple emmiters etc.

  • Like 1

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

I mean the problem is the current system isn't "good" in fact quite the opposite. I don't mind having some simplifications, in fact I realize they are neccesary. But for example I can't even get a ship to turn off its radar due to an incoming ARM shot, well thats a problem, or when that ARM shot doesn't actually damage the target? Never mind that some modern ships are gonna have multiple emmiters etc.


That’s fine. Radar emissions will impact directly on weapons delivery, but the complex systems and damage modelling you suggest just aren’t necessary in a flight sim. A decent hit causing a target to burn and become combat ineffective is enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mogster said:


That’s fine. Radar emissions will impact directly on weapons delivery, but the complex systems and damage modelling you suggest just aren’t necessary in a flight sim. A decent hit causing a target to burn and become combat ineffective is enough. 

 

Yeah but its not happening now for the most part. And then you have the complication of damage control on ships and bringing knocked out systems back online.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I’d see the “WW2 Fleet Carrier” module as an equivalent to Supercarrier…

 

The modelling, AI, damage etc on this carrier would need to be to a good standard as that is the vessel that players are going to interact with most. 
 

Destroyers, cruisers and maybe a battleship or two would need to be added to make a suitable fleet. Fletcher class would be the obvious USN DD, not so sure about US cruisers, but the BB class could be Iowa class, or perhaps North Carolina?

 

Don’t know enough about the IJN - they had very fast and powerful DDs, and their heavy cruisers were a potent threat. Not sure the Yamato class is worth modelling??? Iconic, but so little used…?

 

In terms of difficulty integrating sensors, and AAA suites etc, go fly against the US armed assault transport, Samuel L Chase. That thing has ridiculous AA protection - radar, plus 4” (or 3”??) HA, 40mm and 20mm. There’s no need to worry about how ED will integrate sensors and AAA.  That thing lets loose with everything in a devastating and accurate wall of fire

 

ETA - the ASW element just isn’t needed. We aren’t after a Dangerous Waters replacement 😉


Edited by rkk01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

I guess I’d see the “WW2 Fleet Carrier” module as an equivalent to Supercarrier…

 

The modelling, AI, damage etc on this carrier would need to be to a good standard as that is the vessel that players are going to interact with most. 
 

Destroyers, cruisers and maybe a battleship or two would need to be added to make a suitable fleet. Fletcher class would be the obvious USN DD, not so sure about US cruisers, but the BB class could be Iowa class, or perhaps North Carolina?

 

Don’t know enough about the IJN - they had very fast and powerful DDs, and their heavy cruisers were a potent threat. Not sure the Yamato class is worth modelling??? Iconic, but so little used…?

 

In terms of difficulty integrating sensors, and AAA suites etc, go fly against the US armed assault transport, Samuel L Chase. That thing has ridiculous AA protection - radar, plus 4” (or 3”??) HA, 40mm and 20mm. There’s no need to worry about how ED will integrate sensors and AAA.  That thing lets loose with everything in a devastating and accurate wall of fire

 

ETA - the ASW element just isn’t needed. We aren’t after a Dangerous Waters replacement 😉

 

 

Its not really about having things that go BRRRR. Its about having a realistic ADA enviroment. Veteran DCS players know that a BMP-2 is a far more effective Air defense platform than a shilka. Why? Cuz it has more range and a bigger shell, the gunner with no aiming aids or radar range is also just as good the shilka. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is a good idea, at least not  to have it done by ED.
Looking at the glacial pace of the Supercarrier module, I prefer this to be done by some 3rd party.

Even if a WWII is carrier somewhat simpler.The last thing ED needs is  to take on more projects which they can't complete in years.

 

 


Edited by Snappy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

We need enough assets to do carrier task forces for the Axis and Allies.

 

While US navy task forces differed they were often along these lines.

2 fleet carriers

2 light carriers

2 fast battleships - such as the Iowas

up to 4 cruisers- a mix of heavy and light

over 12 - destroyers

Then a fire support task force would be something like the following

2 old battleships

2 to 4 cruisers (mix of heavy and light)

at least 3 destroyers

then there would need to be landing ships and their escorts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 9/30/2021 at 7:51 AM, upyr1 said:

We need enough assets to do carrier task forces for the Axis and Allies.

 

While US navy task forces differed they were often along these lines.

2 fleet carriers

2 light carriers

2 fast battleships - such as the Iowas

up to 4 cruisers- a mix of heavy and light

over 12 - destroyers

Then a fire support task force would be something like the following

2 old battleships

2 to 4 cruisers (mix of heavy and light)

at least 3 destroyers

then there would need to be landing ships and their escorts

 

Yup, and then what would a similar Japanese "task force" look like?

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2022 at 9:38 AM, Harlikwin said:

 

Yup, and then what would a similar Japanese "task force" look like?

Here is the task force that went after pearl harbor It looks like they had a similar idea. 

6 aircraft carriers

  • 2 battleships
  • 2 heavy cruisers
  • 1 light cruiser
  • 9 destroyers
  • 8 tankers
  • 23 fleet submarines
  • 5 midget submarines

Coral Sea

2 fleet carriers,
1 light carrier,
9 cruisers,
15 destroyers,
5 minesweepers,
2 minelayers,
2 submarine chasers,
3 gunboats,
1 oiler,
1 seaplane tender,
12 transports,

Midway

4 fleet carriers
2 battleships
2 heavy cruisers
1 light cruiser
12 destroyers


Edited by upyr1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2021 at 5:13 PM, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah but its not happening now for the most part. And then you have the complication of damage control on ships and bringing knocked out systems back online.

Yeah l, the navel AI is in a really bad need of an upgrade. It really should be second only to the aircraft AI. It needs to "know" to turn to pursue, or attack a target. Oddly that behavior existed back in Lockon. It needs to know how to position itself where it's defensive armament can engage in incoming attack. Radar, weapons, and engines need to be able to be destroyed. Some newer ships have this for the weapons. And since subs can now dive and fire torpedoes. The destroyers and cruisers need to have some basic simplified ASW ability, and the ability to use torpedoes and other anti-submarine weapons. Also countermeasures are a thing. Ships use chaff screens to confuse radar. And big ass flares to blind IR seekers. All surface to air radars need to know to go silent when an ARM is inbound. It needs to be an advanced option like "dispersion under fire" and we should have some way of setting how long it stays silent. But a modern warship probably won't shut down it's radar as the odds of that harm getting through are minimal. 

So I would really like to see in order 

1. Destroyable radars on ships

2. Sam sites including ships have the option to go silent when incoming harm is detected. 

3. A surface warfare AI. Ships move to engage each other, know how to position themselves so they're defensive weapons can best defeat incoming attacks.

4. Ships get countermeasures, and know how to use them.

5. A simplified anti-submarine warfare environment.

Also the carrier should know to turn into the wind when launching and recovering aircraft.

I believe a major overhaul to the ship and surface AI is the most important element of DCs that needs to be updated now. Clouds are nice, but we need a semi-realistic and engaging combat environment to perform combat operations in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, FlankerKiller said:

Yeah l, the navel AI is in a really bad need of an upgrade. It really should be second only to the aircraft AI. It needs to "know" to turn to pursue, or attack a target. Oddly that behavior existed back in Lockon. It needs to know how to position itself where it's defensive armament can engage in incoming attack. Radar, weapons, and engines need to be able to be destroyed. Some newer ships have this for the weapons. And since subs can now dive and fire torpedoes. The destroyers and cruisers need to have some basic simplified ASW ability, and the ability to use torpedoes and other anti-submarine weapons. Also countermeasures are a thing. Ships use chaff screens to confuse radar. And big ass flares to blind IR seekers. All surface to air radars need to know to go silent when an ARM is inbound. It needs to be an advanced option like "dispersion under fire" and we should have some way of setting how long it stays silent. But a modern warship probably won't shut down it's radar as the odds of that harm getting through are minimal. 

So I would really like to see in order 

1. Destroyable radars on ships

2. Sam sites including ships have the option to go silent when incoming harm is detected. 

3. A surface warfare AI. Ships move to engage each other, know how to position themselves so they're defensive weapons can best defeat incoming attacks.

4. Ships get countermeasures, and know how to use them.

5. A simplified anti-submarine warfare environment.

Also the carrier should know to turn into the wind when launching and recovering aircraft.

I believe a major overhaul to the ship and surface AI is the most important element of DCs that needs to be updated now. Clouds are nice, but we need a semi-realistic and engaging combat environment to perform combat operations in.

 

In the context of DCS I think we really need #1 and #2 the most. As well as CM's for ships. And a vaguely decent damage model that reflects mission kills, rather than having to sink the stupid thing. 

For most DCS missions I think thats enough. I actually find the fact that ships engage other ship groups to be a problem on several servers where its best if they don't actually do that. And there are plenty of examples IRL where that wouldn't have happenend, so some sort of ROE for them to just self-protect with Sams would be good too. 

 

 

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

In the context of DCS I think we really need #1 and #2 the most. As well as CM's for ships. And a vaguely decent damage model that reflects mission kills, rather than having to sink the stupid thing. 

For most DCS missions I think thats enough. I actually find the fact that ships engage other ship groups to be a problem on several servers where its best if they don't actually do that. And there are plenty of examples IRL where that wouldn't have happenend, so some sort of ROE for them to just self-protect with Sams would be good too. 

 

 

 

Good point, we can put self protect options in the #3 block. I think it really would need two sets of options in the advanced waypoint editor. Self protect from surface threats, and self protect from aerial threats. For Surface threats maybe use an option for: all weapons, lage and small caliber navel guns, and small caliber navel guns only. I have no idea if those bushmasters, and fifty's actually work, but they need to.

For the anti air side maybe: Use all wepons, use close in weapons only, if we get countermeasure, use passive defense only. 

 

I'm not a naval history buff, or at least not in the post world War II era. But Ed recently posted the story of how the US Navy annihilated the Iranian Navy in the late 80s. I'm not sure but this has to be one of the most significant naval actions to have taken place since the and world War II. In this action there were several harpoon shots taken against US naval warships. Perry classes I believe. And they defended themselves with passive countermeasures. I'm quite certain this is because we didn't want to run the risk of collateral damage that comes with slinging antire missiles. I don't think we're going to see any kind of change the ships we have now until we see an overhaul of the AI. But DCs has become a very large air combat simulator. We already have the super carrier, df18, the 14. The a7 is in development, the f8 may be in development, the A6 is in development. The jf-17, c101 of all things, and vegan can all carry anti ship missiles. Updating the naval assets, and giving them a better AI should absolutely be a priority in DCS now. Without it we have cool navel planes and range targets.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Start to search an naval ship enginier developer...

While that would be great, I think the scope within DCS needs to be to have ships as "reasonable" targets. I personally don't think DCS needs to be the everything to everyone simulator. I mean CA turned out to be kind of a dumpster fire.

Realistically from the aircraft point of view a ship is a target and sam site. 

Meaning, decent "SAM" modeling: I.e. multiple types of radar, air search, sea search, etc. And then usually depending on the era several track/guidance radars.

Decent protection from air launched threats modeling (CIWS, anti missile systems, jamming, and other countermeasures). Including the ability to turn off radars if needed. 

And finally some sort of reasonable, if the ship takes a hit, its probably out of the fight for the duration of a DCS mission, or at least elements of it are. 

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

While that would be great, I think the scope within DCS needs to be to have ships as "reasonable" targets. I personally don't think DCS needs to be the everything to everyone simulator. I mean CA turned out to be kind of a dumpster fire.

Realistically from the aircraft point of view a ship is a target and sam site. 

Meaning, decent "SAM" modeling: I.e. multiple types of radar, air search, sea search, etc. And then usually depending on the era several track/guidance radars.

Decent protection from air launched threats modeling (CIWS, anti missile systems, jamming, and other countermeasures). Including the ability to turn off radars if needed. 

And finally some sort of reasonable, if the ship takes a hit, its probably out of the fight for the duration of a DCS mission, or at least elements of it are. 

 

If you like ship "easy sinkable shiting ducks" ok, but if you like some near realistic damage, need  data, how the weapons work vs a ship and how a ship can be damage, and dont need secret data to build them. Has very good "open sources" to make them.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.php
http://www.admiraltytrilogy.com/reading.php
http://www.admiraltytrilogy.com/presentations.php


Edited by Silver_Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

If you like ship "easy sinkable shiting ducks" ok, but if you like some near realistic damage, need  data, how the weapons work vs a ship and how a ship can be damage, and dont need secret data to build them. Has very good "open sources" to make them.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.php
http://www.admiraltytrilogy.com/reading.php
http://www.admiraltytrilogy.com/presentations.php

 

I mean I do know some of that stuff. But I don't think DCS needs to go totally down that rabit hole, plus actual details versus different ASM warheads are largely classified. At best you can use the "size" of the warhead to relate damage somehow. But like a harpoon hitting a frigate means Mr frigate is gonna have a bad day. Maybe you can localize to a "few" different locations, i.e. Stern/mid/fwd. And then work out which systems are "out". 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the suggestion for using a naval ship architect as a consultant for doing battle damage on ships.  While the specifics are likely classified, we can make educated guesses on what might occur.  Of course, when accessing a naval ship architect, they will charge premium prices for the services and expertise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...