CV-59 Forrestal Feedback Thread

[fagulha]

3 hours ago, Jackjack171 said:

Nice deck setup!

Thank you!

[RustBelt]

You can’t really trust Gamma either because Gamma is in relation to your environment and specific monitor NOT just a setting in the menu. HB’s Gamma 2.2 isn’t the same as what you might see if you just set your stuff to 2.2. You need a full on pro calibration to see it exactly as HB sees it on their side. 
 

The further fact is both HB and DCS is limited by the decade + old rendering pipeline that at it’s most sophisticated can replicate an iPhone camera for dynamic contrast, color gamut, and resolution. 
 

Neither photographs, OR OpenGL/Vulcan rendering can come close to how the eye actually works. And in DCS it’s even worse since it uses an even more primitive camera model for rendering where it cheats zoom with LoD clipping and FoV changes at locked absolutes. 
 

As cute as it is for designers to talk about how they set lumens or albedo exactly to real world measurements, DCS can’t even come close to visually recreating the way the real world looks. So any argument to “accuracy” is absurd. Something Holywood understood a century ago, but most game designers still haven’t got in their head.

[draconus]

Since the rendering is wrong now, I suggest to go to ED wishlist, cause it ain't HB's fault to fix.

[RustBelt]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Since the rendering is wrong now, I suggest to go to ED wishlist, cause it ain't HB's fault to fix.

Oh that would be a pointless endeavor. Until a computer science department comes up with a better “Free” render system that Nvidia and AMD can rip off, no game designer has the resources to invent a novel render pipeline that doesn’t need resource hog bodges like post process Anti-aliasing. 
 

Hell if it wasn’t for MIT loaner code going to Flight Unlimited we’d all still be stuck with basic vector flight models like in FS 2000 and 90’s Microprose sims.

Computer entertainment just doesn’t have the kind of overhead to allow that level of clean sheet computer science.

[draconus]

18 hours ago, Hawkeye91 said:

 

Same image resized to compare how it could look with "perfect" rendering and no HUD "issues", so I wouldn't be so quick with blaming on DCS graphics engine.

RL

DCS

Edited June 15, 2022 by draconus

[Bananabrai]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Same image resized to compare how it could look with "perfect" rendering and no HUD "issues", so I wouldn't be so quick with blaming on DCS graphics engine.

RL

DCS

 

There is still a huge difference in distance, the helo is just a couple of meters behind the deck

[RustBelt]

12 hours ago, draconus said:

Same image resized to compare how it could look with "perfect" rendering and no HUD "issues", so I wouldn't be so quick with blaming on DCS graphics engine.

RL

DCS

 

I don’t know how your monitor is set up, but even that photograph has way better contrast even scaled down. I mean the compromise was blowing out the sky, but the photo is much closer to how the deck or a worn old runway actually looks to the eye. The DCS picture is basically a monotone deck with even the meatball lost in the low contrast. (Which they have to fake back up with obscene bloom on the light source) All the visual depth cues of real life are gone. No haze distance, no sharp line contrast (because Anti-Aliasing) and no “glimmer.”

Edited June 15, 2022 by RustBelt

[Pickle]

Anyone know or would be willing to hazard a guess as to why I lose 15-20 FPS simply by swapping the Stennis for the Forrestal?  I'm going from around 40-45 down to 20-25.  I know the smoke isn't doing me any favors, but there must be something else going on.

[RustBelt]

FXO and Metashaders2 directories getting gunked up on the forestall model?

[Yott]

On 1/23/2022 at 8:21 PM, fagulha said:

Did you tried to increase, in DCS options menu, the visual range to see if it makes a difference?

I also nioticed that bug. That makes night approaches challenging)

Any progress to fix it?

If needed, I can help to reproduce or test that case.

My settings are full high, AFx16.

[sirrah]

Sorry up front as this has probably been asked and answered somewhere in the previous 12 pages of this thread (I admit, I'm a lazy man ), but..

Is it in any way imaginable that this beautiful aircraft carrier could at some point get the same AI deck crew implemented as the SC module from ED?

Would it at all be feasible/possible programming wise? (My question proves that I have no understanding of software development )

 

I know that the SC is a paid module made by ED and the Forrestal is made by HB, but I can also imagine that it would benefit ED to allow HB to make use of their AI deck crew. As it may attract new players to DCS. Especially now that it seems that ED is adding AI deck crew to their free Stennis carrier (I assume ED is not just adding a kneeling static deck crew model), I wonder how feasible it is to see this feature added to the Forrestal.

[draconus]

27 minutes ago, sirrah said:

Is it in any way imaginable that this beautiful aircraft carrier could at some point get the same AI deck crew implemented as the SC module from ED?

HB expressed such a wish and they were talking with ED about that. We don't know anything more.

And in programming eeeverything is possible - it's just a question of will, time and money.

[MBot]

On 10/20/2021 at 11:08 PM, 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.

 

Still love the wonderful and beautiful Forestall. Just wanted to float this idea again of optimizing the parking positions adjacent to the island and to add additional "overflow" spawn points at the stern of the ship (in the landing area) to accommodate larger launch events.

[AG-51_Razor]

Just curious about what, if anything, has been done about the catapult "hooking in" positions on the deck for the various cats. The last time I flew off the Forrestal in my Hornet, there seemed to be a considerable difference in where you needed to be in order to get the cat to accept you after pressing the U key. Not at all a deal breaker by any means, she's still a beautiful piece of work!

[Kondor77]

19 hours ago, AG-51_Razor said:

Just curious about what, if anything, has been done about the catapult "hooking in" positions on the deck for the various cats. The last time I flew off the Forrestal in my Hornet, there seemed to be a considerable difference in where you needed to be in order to get the cat to accept you after pressing the U key. Not at all a deal breaker by any means, she's still a beautiful piece of work!

This is a leftover from the original Stennis. After some trial and error you'll find out where the 'catapult hook' zone is for each cat. Some are bigger zones than others, which makes it all the more annoying. 

[Top Jockey]

Hello everyone,

By mere curiosity does anyone know what are those small, gray, cylindrical shape tanks (dozens of them), around the Forrestal's deck, both at starboard and portboard ?

 

Thank you.

[Rudel_chw]

4 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

By mere curiosity does anyone know what are those small, gray, cylindrical shape tanks (dozens of them), around the Forrestal's deck, both at starboard and portboard ?

life rafts in protective canisters?

https://www.alamy.com/life-raft-canister-on-navy-aircraft-carrier-image212264429.html

 

[Top Jockey]

34 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

life rafts in protective canisters?

https://www.alamy.com/life-raft-canister-on-navy-aircraft-carrier-image212264429.html

 

 

Hello Rudel_chw,

I'll be damned... saw your link and that's exactly that !

 

Never thought it could be that, thought instead it could be some kind of external reservoirs.

Used the CVN-74 John C. Stennis for a long time, and ultimately I've been using the CV-59 Forrestal, which I find very interesting with its own 'old-school' characteristics, very good work the DCS model indeed.

 

Thank you.

 

 

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Top Jockey said:

ultimately I've been using the CV-59 Forrestal, which I find very interesting with its own 'old-school' characteristics, very good work the DCS model indeed.

 

 yes, I love the Forrestal and use it a lot when flying the A-4E Mod or the F-14. You can use some of the animated crew members of the supercarrier, to add a bit of immersion to the Forrestal .. they can be used for free, even if you don't own the SC.  I made a Static Template for it, so that I don't have to re-create it from scratch on every new mission, looks like this:

 

 

I'm attaching it in case you want to try it   .. place it at /Saved Games/DCS/StaticTemplate/ ... if the folder doesn't exist, create it using Windows. This is my readme.txt for this Template:

Template for a Blue CV-59 Forrestal Group at Marianas
- Move Wp1 to change Group's Heading.
- Move the carrier to change the Group's position.
- Statics hidden for decluttering the F10 Map
- Forrestal Rescue Helo set for Late activation, requires RescueHelo script by @FunkyFranky (optional)

Forrestal ATC: 159 MHz
Forrestal Tacan: 59X
Forrestal ICLS: Channel 9
Initial speed: 25 knots

Marianas - Blue - CV-59 Forrestal Carrier Group (by Rudel_chw).stm Rescue Helo Forrestal.lua

[Top Jockey]

12 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

 yes, I love the Forrestal and use it a lot when flying the A-4E Mod or the F-14. You can use some of the animated crew members of the supercarrier, to add a bit of immersion to the Forrestal .. they can be used for free, even if you don't own the SC.  I made a Static Template for it, so that I don't have to re-create it from scratch on every new mission, looks like this:

 

 

I'm attaching it in case you want to try it   .. place it at /Saved Games/DCS/StaticTemplate/ ... if the folder doesn't exist, create it using Windows. This is my readme.txt for this Template:

Template for a Blue CV-59 Forrestal Group at Marianas
- Move Wp1 to change Group's Heading.
- Move the carrier to change the Group's position.
- Statics hidden for decluttering the F10 Map
- Forrestal Rescue Helo set for Late activation, requires RescueHelo script by @FunkyFranky (optional)

Forrestal ATC: 159 MHz
Forrestal Tacan: 59X
Forrestal ICLS: Channel 9
Initial speed: 25 knots

Marianas - Blue - CV-59 Forrestal Carrier Group (by Rudel_chw).stm 231.04 kB · 1 download Rescue Helo Forrestal.lua 214 B · 1 download

 

Very good, thank you !

[martinistripes]

On 7/6/2022 at 10:34 AM, draconus said:

HB expressed such a wish and they were talking with ED about that. We don't know anything more.

And in programming eeeverything is possible - it's just a question of will, time and money.

Would be great to have the SC animated crew, but with 70s/80s attire; it would be the finishing touch.

Edited October 25, 2022 by martinistripes

[tms0018]

Not that Heatblur doesn't have a ton on their plate already, but how cool would it be if they added the Spruance/Kidd classes as AI escorts for the Forrestal's once they are finished with all four carriers. Right now, we really don't have AI destroyers that are time period appropriate for them in the game. We have OHP's as frigates, but the block II Burkes didn't start coming into the fleet until the late 90's and the Forrestal's were already decommissioned or about to be decommissioned in the case of USS Independence.

[RustBelt]

Finished with all four? They aren’t even being definitive about doing the Saratoga. Much less the other two that will need actual re-modeling. 
 

Heatblur got the ball rolling. Someone else needs to start stepping up and make a Cold War assets pack with that stuff in it. Sadly it’s the perfect stuff Razbam could do, but they tie their hands with complex aircraft systems. We need another Razbam just to make assets.

[Yannick Pancake]

 Also some Charles F Adams DDG could be cool.

On 11/17/2022 at 1:58 AM, tms0018 said:

Not that Heatblur doesn't have a ton on their plate already, but how cool would it be if they added the Spruance/Kidd classes as AI escorts for the Forrestal's once they are finished with all four carriers. Right now, we really don't have AI destroyers that are time period appropriate for them in the game. We have OHP's as frigates, but the block II Burkes didn't start coming into the fleet until the late 90's and the Forrestal's were already decommissioned or about to be decommissioned in the case of USS Independence.

 

[Northstar98]

On 11/17/2022 at 12:58 AM, tms0018 said:

Right now, we really don't have AI destroyers that are time period appropriate for them in the game. We have OHP's as frigates, but the block II Burkes didn't start coming into the fleet until the late 90's and the Forrestal's were already decommissioned or about to be decommissioned in the case of USS Independence.

I absolutely agree and I feel this is a pretty gaping omission for 80s/90s naval

The current Arleigh Burke Flight IIA, as depicted in DCS, is from the 2010s; the OHP from the early 2000s (though fires the wrong missile, though with the correct guidance method) and the Ticonderoga from the late 2000s.

The current Forrestal depicts the ship as it was between 1990-1993 (at least according the C:MO database), though you could take it back to 1986 (it's not like the difference between the Phalanx Block 1 and Phalanx Block 0 are modelled), going any further back and Forrestal had a very different sensors and weapons fit.

EDIT: The above is incorrect, Forrestal in DCS covers 1986 - 1993, just the Phalanx it's depicted with is incorrect (Block 1 as opposed to Block 0 - the difference is not trivial).

It would be good to get naval assets covering that period (as well as the late Cold War in general) - they would also handsomely complement the upcoming Kola map.

While it would be incredibly cool to get the Spruance (finally a Cold War escort) my only point of contention with it is that it's more geared up to do ASW, which is something frankly as good as absent in DCS (of course during the mid 80s they were upgraded and geared up more towards surface attack capability - some received ABL for RGM-109A/B/C/D and the majority were upgraded with the Mk 41 VLS - which is probably the most appropriate fit for the Forrestal as it stands).

So personally, I'd put more priority on a pre-NTU Belknap or a post NTU Charles F. Adams (or preferably all 3 - the more classes, the better)

On 11/17/2022 at 2:49 AM, RustBelt said:

Finished with all four? They aren’t even being definitive about doing the Saratoga. Much less the other two that will need actual re-modeling.

All 4 are supposedly still planned according to their Trello (Saratoga being the first, with Ranger and Independence being more distant).

Edited October 12, 2024 by Northstar98