CV-59 Forrestal Feedback Thread

[IronMike]

Dear all,

because of the sheer size and scope of this update, we want to offer a specific USS Forrestal Feedback thread: please report your finding and bugs or any related issues concerning the CV-59 Forrestal in this thread. Thank you!

 

 

[xanstin]

Spawn issue. Spawning 12 aircraft with 1 player slot looks like 8-9 overlap a bit. Just AI they spawn correctly.

[AG-51_Razor]

Beautiful model of the ship!   Just curious though, why throw in a Tilly for that time period and then clutter up the possible parking places for it with static (immovable) fork lifts, tugs and huffers?? Where do your artists expect us mission builders to put it?

[Cobra847]

4 minutes ago, AG-51_Razor said:

Beautiful model of the ship!   Just curious though, why throw in a Tilly for that time period and then clutter up the possible parking places for it with static (immovable) fork lifts, tugs and huffers?? Where do your artists expect us mission builders to put it?

Hey!

Actually- the tilly we added now is the wrong model (just painted yellow) temporarily. The changelog should have reflected. The real NS-60 Tilly will be added in the next update, and then it will be placeable (or default near the island). So to answer your question; the tugs and forklifts currently clutter that area because we are waiting to add the proper NS60.

[RaisedByWolves]

Thank you for this carrier. Even without deck crew it is great.  Also the props don't turn when its underway.

[Rudel_chw]

Hello,

Seems that the Forrestal is not compatible with the Historic Filter feature of the Mission Editor. This carrier should be allowed historically for the period 1955 – 1998.

Great model, thanks a lot for leaving it free even for people that hasnt purchased the Tomcat yet 

Eduardo

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

It is a beautiful ship, but the worn-out paint of the landing area markers makes it very hard to line up properly in VR, even harder than with the other carriers.
But that has always been a problem: before the SC days, I used a custom livery that a friend of mine made for the default Stennis, which made the landing area a lot better visible.
Did the real Forrestal also have the green/amber/red line-up lights at the back, or was that implemented later on? If it had, I hope something can be worked out with ED to give the Forrestal even more utility. Currently, the SC voices are used and also the LSO mechanics which means even on the Forrestal the LSO will report an incoming F-14 as "you're slow" even when the plane is exactly on-speed or even a little fast. It would be nice to see this corrected at some point  

Edited October 20, 2021 by Raven (Elysian Angel)
typo

[Northstar98]

I've only got a few minor nitpicks, the Forrestal really is a work of art, easily on par or even surpassing the SC module ships (especially the Kuznetsov), so it's really difficult to find fault with it. HB have done a fantastic job

 

Phalanx CIWS

Firstly, the barrels are a bit on the long side.

Forrestal is currently depicted with Phalanx Block 1 (accurate for the Forrestal for 1990 - 1993). EDIT: This is actually incorrect, images from 1989 through to 1992 show Phalanx Block 0, meaning the current Phalanx is incorrect (the difference between Block 0 and 1 is not a trivial one, or at least, it wouldn't be if DCS modelled them properly). But both Phalanx Block 0 and Block 1 have the shorter 1520 mm gun, as opposed to the Block 1B's 2000 mm gun.

The muzzle is also incorrect.

Note the shorter magazine (more-or-less flush with the gun mount), shorter barrels and the muzzle.

 

Additionally this Phalanx seems to not be far out enough.

Also note the barrel.

 

IFLOLS Camera:

The camera on the FLOLS is facing backwards:

 

AN/SPS-49

The AN/SPS-49 has vertical elements that are all the same size, making the antenna look rectangular. From images I've seen the 2 closest to each edge of the antenna should be shorter, making the antenna look more elliptical:

Speaking of which, like all other ships with these RADARs, the AN/SPS-48C and AN/SPS-49(V)5 NTU (fairly sure those are the variants for our post SLEP Forrestal), are undefined:

GT.Sensors = {  OPTIC = {"long-range naval optics", "long-range naval LLTV"},
                RADAR = {
                    "seasparrow tr",
                    "carrier search radar",
                },
            };

"sea sparrow tr" refers to the Mk95 illuminators (in DCS these have searching capability, whereas IRL, they just used to provide CW illumination, with acquisition handled by the AN/SPS-48 and/or -49. The Mk95 illuminators aren't animated either. Of course Forrestal suffers from the same RADAR modelling and limitations as every other ship in DCS.

"carrier search radar" is a generic surface-search RADAR (common to all aircraft carriers), used as a stand-in for the AN/SPS-64(V)9 and AN/SPS-67(V)1.

 

Also to note (though not sure if it's planned), the Forrestal is the only aircraft carrier in DCS to not have a hangar modelled, despite, rather curiously, the elevators being animated.

 

Other than these very minor nitpicks, the ship is fantastic, easily on par (or even surpassing) the Supercarrier

On 10/20/2021 at 6:39 PM, Cobra847 said:

Hey!

Actually- the tilly we added now is the wrong model (just painted yellow) temporarily. The changelog should have reflected. The real NS-60 Tilly will be added in the next update, and then it will be placeable (or default near the island). So to answer your question; the tugs and forklifts currently clutter that area because we are waiting to add the proper NS60.

Great to hear!

Personally, it would be better if the area was left empty, and leave it up to mission editors to populate as they see fit.

Edited October 12, 2024 by Northstar98
Evidence actually suggests that Forrestal never received Phalanx Block 1, only Block 0.

[Airhunter]

Great job guys! 

[Silver_Dragon]

To HB team, I posted here a detail about weapons, sensors, systems and airwings of Forrestal Class (Some detail need detail a little). From all guns Mk42 5in/54 carriers on 55 to late versions.

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[Wizard_03]

IFOLS is too bright, I can hardly see the meatball with gamma at default setting, because the green lights are blinding. Can even see it from the side of the ship way outside the grove on the downwind leg.

[Eagle7907]

Does the waist catapults work? I can’t seem to get linked on Cat 3. 1 and 2 work. Haven’t tried 4 yet.

4 works. However, I pressed U again to cancel to ready the cat in F2 view. I can’t get back into cockpit by pressing F1. Actually all view keys are unresponsive. I can move throttle and hear engines rev up, rudders move, stabs move. Views are broken somehow.

Hmm, weird, I let it sit a while and now functional again. Just went back to cat 3 and still not functional.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AG-51_Razor]

Thanks for the reply Cobra. Awesome work on the ship model Your team should be very proud of their work.

[sLYFa]

The ship looks awesome, on par with the payware carriers, in some areas even better. I love the overall "dirtiness" . The IFLOS is a nightmare though....

[erick]

This carrier looks fantastic. Amazing job. Love the color palette that was used. The deck and overall surfaces look so realistic, at least to my eyes! 

After placing a few static deck crew around the joint, this thing gives the supercarrier a run for its money!

Only small thing I noticed was the ship's props not turning whilst underway, but otherwise, great job and thank you very much!!

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 hour ago, Eagle7907 said:

I can’t seem to get linked on Cat 3

It worked for me, but you have to make sure you’re more or less in the correct spot, same as with the default Stennis.

[Jackjack171]

2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

Hello,

Seems that the Forrestal is not compatible with the Historic Filter feature of the Mission Editor. This carrier should be allowed historically for the period 1955 – 1998.

Great model, thanks a lot for leaving it free even for people that hasnt purchased the Tomcat yet 

Eduardo

Agreed! Although, she was decommissioned in 1993. So 1955-1993.

[Eagle7907]

I’ve been stopping just aft of the shuttle. I turn off NWS, kneel down the jet, then press U. Nothing happened. On the other cats, you can see them steam up, but I couldn’t get cat 3 to work. I’ll try again later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

IFOLS is too bright, I can hardly see the meatball with gamma at default setting, because the green lights are blinding. Can even see it from the side of the ship way outside the grove on the downwind leg.

You can also see it from the bow, doesn't look like LOS to the lights are modelled, it's especially noticeable from further away.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Northstar98

[BirdFarm]

The IFLOS has light bloom when looking back at it from the front of the boat. the bloom is pretty bad until at 3/4 of a mile from behind the boat

[MBot]

First, a huge thanks to HB. This is a fantastic and very generous addition to DCS. The carrier looks beautiful.

 

What I have found is that in VR, the datum lights and the ball are severely over-blooming. They even spill over when viewed from the bow:

May I also make some suggestions in regards to the spawn positions? It seems that the Forrestal has taken the same approach as the Stennis and the SCs with the first flight at mission start spawning at the center of the deck (these spawn points only work at mission time 0 and wont be available into the mission):

This setup often causes issues for me, as this blocks access to the catapults. Especially with AI this often leads to problems and stuck aircraft. May I suggest to move this spawn positions in front of the island as so?

 

As you can see, there should be sufficient space available for that setup and it frees all aircraft to taxi. Personally, I would also re-arrange the numbering to give priority to the deck edge parkings, but that is just my preference.

May I also suggest that you define additional "overflow" spawn positions at the stern of the ship?

I know this will block the landing area, but don't think this is a problem. If numbered positions 13-20, they would only be used if the first 12 spawn positions are occupied. In single player the mission designer can coordinate landing aircraft if he wants to use these "overflow" positions. In public multiplayer I think it is extremely rare that more than 12 people will spawn simultaneously on a carrier. Organized multiplayer groups that might want to spawn with more than 12 players simultaneously will be able to coordinate launch and recovery operations.

Edited October 20, 2021 by MBot

[Lodkins]

found that a F-14A AI Landing looks to Overshoot end of deck, but it doesn't fall and after some height things, it goes around to park
( in custom mission specifically to see all new carrier )

 

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Lodkins

[Hobo 1-1]

Really nice work on the modeling! Fantastic attention to detail. You can see the love that went into this. Thank you! 
 

I’m finding it very hard to line up accurately in VR. It’s not a resolution issue. I can see the shape of the deck clearly, but I can’t see any markings on the deck until over the fantail. I can adjust the gamma to correct, but then the rest of the world is washed out. It might very well be just me and my setup, but I’d thought I’d report it for corroboration or elimination due to user failure. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Palmetto 1-1

[Baz000]

1 hour ago, MBot said:

First, a huge thanks to HB. This is a fantastic and very generous addition to DCS. The carrier looks beautiful.

 

What I have found is that in VR, the datum lights and the ball are severely over-blooming. They even spill over when viewed from the bow:

May I also make some suggestions in regards to the spawn positions? It seems that the Forrestal has taken the same approach as the Stennis and the SCs with the first flight at mission start spawning at the center of the deck (these spawn points only work at mission time 0 and wont be available into the mission):

This setup often causes issues for me, as this blocks access to the catapults. Especially with AI this often leads to problems and stuck aircraft. May I suggest to move this spawn positions in front of the island as so?

 

As you can see, there should be sufficient space available for that setup and it frees all aircraft to taxi. Personally, I would also re-arrange the numbering to give priority to the deck edge parkings, but that is just my preference.

May I also suggest that you define additional "overflow" spawn positions at the stern of the ship?

I know this will block the landing area, but don't think this is a problem. If numbered positions 13-20, they would only be used if the first 12 spawn positions are occupied. In single player the mission designer can coordinate landing aircraft if he wants to use these "overflow" positions. In public multiplayer I think it is extremely rare that more than 12 people will spawn simultaneously on a carrier. Organized multiplayer groups that might want to spawn with more than 12 players simultaneously will be able to coordinate launch and recovery operations.

 

You wouldn't park F-14s there, that in front of the island is called the "Helo Hole" and the helicopters park there with folded blades... Also, more towards the aft of the island from the Helo Hole is where the E-2Cs would be parked.

 

Generally speaking of course, at start of flight operations... Often on a full flight deck you would see F-14s needed to launch on that cycle being parked right over the fantail right along the landing deck.

[MBot]

6 minutes ago, Baz000 said:

You wouldn't park F-14s there, that in front of the island is called the "Helo Hole" and the helicopters park there with folded blades... Also, more towards the aft of the island from the Helo Hole is where the E-2Cs would be parked.

 

In DCS these are just spawn positions not tied to specific aircraft types. 

Still...