CV-59 Forrestal Feedback Thread

[Northstar98]

Found another detail which I missed on the first post.

The AN/SPS-48C is almost completely devoid of its supporting structure on the rear of the antenna, which kinda makes its side profile look a bit odd.

 

The rear of Forrestal's AN/SPS-48C, note the lack of structure on the rear of the antenna array:

Ditto, but a side profile, note how it's essentially flat:

Compare that to the real antenna, on the real Forrestal (source)

Note the large box-like structure running up the centre of the rear of the antenna, and the various trusswork connecting it.

Compare this against the free Stennis (obviously much lower quality, and not that accurate, but it is present):

Ditto, but on the Theodore Roosevelt (Supercarrier), this gets it pretty much perfect:

 

A little side note, but also note how in the real image, the antenna isn't one solid plane, but is actually a mesh. I'd also like to mention though that HB's Forrestal actually has the horizontal elements of the antenna face in 3D (and consequently has the highest quality antenna face of all 3). The other 2 also treat the antenna as one solid plane, though they should be the AN/SPS-48E NTU, which has more of it 'filled in' as it were (a view of the front, and a view from behind).

Edited February 5, 2022 by Northstar98
actually finished the post this time

[Cobra847]

5 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Found another detail which I missed on the first post.

The AN/SPS-48C is almost completely devoid of its supporting structure on the rear of the antenna, which kinda makes its side profile look a bit odd.

The rear of Forrestal's AN/SPS-48C, not the lack of structure on the rear of the antenna:

Ditto, but a side profile, note how it's essentially flat:

Compare that to the real antenna, on the real Forrestal (source

Note the large box-like structure running up the centre of the rear of the antenna, and the various trusswork connecting it.

Compare this against the free Stennis (obviously much lower quality, and not that accurate, but it is present):

Ditto, but on the Theodore Roosevelt (Supercarrier), this gets it pretty much perfect:

 

A little side note, but also note how in the real image, the antenna isn't one solid plane, but is actually a mesh. I'd also like to mention though that HB's Forrestal actually has the horizontal elements of the antenna face in 3D (and consequently has the highest quality antenna face of all 3). The other 2 also treat the antenna as one solid plane, though they should be the AN/SPS-48E NTU, which has more of it 'filled in' as it were (a view of the front, and a view from behind).

 

This model is slated to be entirely replaced/remodeled exactly for this reason, likewise with a few of the others. But good feedback and well spotted!

Edited December 19, 2021 by Cobra847

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, Cobra847 said:

This model is slated to be entirely replaced/remodeled exactly for this reason, likewise with a few of the others. But good feedback and well spotted!

Cheers Cobra! the Forrestal really is a work of art, and as far as the AN/SPS-48C goes the Forrestal does have the highest quality antenna face of all 3 ships . To be honest, I feel like I'm clutching at straws with some of the points I'm raising, and I feel that unless you were specifically looking for them, most would have gone unnoticed.

[fagulha]

Hello @Cobra847,

As already stated the Forrestal is a piece of art, andI think already suggested but did you considered to create deck liveries? weathered/less weathered, usually i like to simulate the deck in the beginning of the deployment (clean) and during deployment (weathered). And some users already did some similar but i would like to see it from you.

It´s a detail, and low priority, but i think it´s neat

Merry Christmas and thank you for you outstanding work!

F.

[Blood-n-Guts]

First of all I want to congratulate Heatblur for their great work on this aircraft carrier.

For people like me who like to "decorate" the aircraft carrier, I would like this platform to be fixed to be able to place the deck personnel on it.

In the photos it can be seen that by placing the deck personnel on it, they fall to a lower level.

Sorry for my terrible english...

Edited December 19, 2021 by Blood-n-Guts

[Blood-n-Guts]

Same case here ...

It would be nice to fix these aisles as well, since the deck staff often use it a lot.

I know it's stupid, but these little details add realism to this great work.

Greetings people

[fagulha]

8 minutes ago, Blood-n-Guts said:

Same case here ...

It would be nice to fix these aisles as well, since the deck staff often use it a lot.

I know it's stupid, but these little details add realism to this great work.

Greetings people

Agreed. But, that may induce other problems... I use the Deck crew in the aisles in the Supercarrier and i found out that AI aircraft won´t take of from CAT 3 or 4, only after removing the deck crew from the aisle.

[Blood-n-Guts]

Greetings fagulha ...

Hey, I didn't know that ...

Thanks

[fagulha]

7 minutes ago, Blood-n-Guts said:

Greetings fagulha ...

Hey, I didn't know that ...

Thanks

Neither do i, it took awhile to figure why AI didn´t take off. Little odd to be honest, the aisle is below/outside the deck and never thought that could be an issue.

[Blood-n-Guts]

11 minutes ago, fagulha said:

Neither do i, it took awhile to figure why AI didn´t take off. Little odd to be honest, the aisle is below/outside the deck and never thought that could be an issue.

Placing the ground crew is very complicated, the AI behaves strangely and the placement of the aircraft on the deck is very complicated, but I like how it looks, there are many limitations, but it looks good ...

[kubanloewe]

Hi, since i´m a Ninja now i have time play around with some games....

The Forrestal would be my favourite Carrier if they would implement a working deck crew and also a Pilot in the F-14.

It has some minor bugs and issues but i can live with that. Only thing is a operating deck crew and yes i would pay for this feature as a option in the future !

i played some days now with it ....

 

[fagulha]

On 12/20/2021 at 3:41 PM, Blood-n-Guts said:

Placing the ground crew is very complicated, the AI behaves strangely and the placement of the aircraft on the deck is very complicated, but I like how it looks, there are many limitations, but it looks good ...

Don´t have any problems placing ground crew neither placing AI aircrafts on deck. What may be sometimes problematic (like the issue i mentioned in previous post) is to get a balance between statics and AI taxi routes but when needed i go to modelviewer, load the carrier and the taxi routes to check where to place my static objects. I use photos and other resources to see where to place statics as in real life, etc. No big deal for me to be honest, but i´m used to do it and someone who is not used to work with the ME and the deck may find difficult, of course.

Edited December 23, 2021 by fagulha

[Blood-n-Guts]

3 hours ago, fagulha said:

Don´t have any problems placing ground crew neither placing AI aircrafts on deck. What may be sometimes problematic (like the issue i mentioned in previous post) is to get a balance between statics and AI taxi routes but when needed i go to modelviewer, load the carrier and the taxi routes to check where to place my static objects. I use photos and other resources to see where to place statics as in real life, etc. No big deal for me to be honest, but i´m used to do it and someone who is not used to work with the ME and the deck may find difficult, of course.

 

Excellent idea, thus saving time of loading the game for each modification of the deck personnel and static objects ...

[fagulha]

9 minutes ago, Blood-n-Guts said:

Excellent idea, thus saving time of loading the game for each modification of the deck personnel and static objects ...

I have templates that took me days and months to improve, but it was worthwhile,  now if i want to do any changes/start a new mission i just load the template.

About the saving time, along the way i learned the deck positions and where/how to place statics and do it with fewer errors.

Edited December 23, 2021 by fagulha

[NeedzWD40]

Just a note that the Forrestal still takes damage on aircraft trapping/landing as of the current update.

[RustBelt]

So do real carriers "technically".

[RaisedByWolves]

On 12/23/2021 at 2:25 PM, NeedzWD40 said:

Just a note that the Forrestal still takes damage on aircraft trapping/landing as of the current update.

How hard are you landing?

[D4n]

Has Heatblur already asked ED to add their Supercarrier deck-crew code to the Forrestal (for Supercarrier-owners)? (Since the Forrestal would be even more immersive with a moving deck-crew)

[WarbossPetross]

17 часов назад, D4n сказал:

Has Heatblur already asked ED to add their Supercarrier deck-crew code to the Forrestal (for Supercarrier-owners)? (Since the Forrestal would be even more immersive with a moving deck-crew)

I second that. Turns out SC has spoiled me with folks lining me up for the catapult starting position

[Eagle7907]

Me three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[r4y30n]

Has Heatblur already asked ED to add their Supercarrier deck-crew code to the Forrestal (for Supercarrier-owners)? (Since the Forrestal would be even more immersive with a moving deck-crew)

Let’s say ED agreed to share all the SC assets. They won’t work on the Forrestal without setup and testing by HB and who’s gonna pay for that?

Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see it happen as much as the next guy but remember, the Forrestal is a free carrier, much the same as the Stennis is a free carrier.

[Jayhawk1971]

I think it would be easier - provided both parties had any interest in doing it - if HB consented for ED to incorporate the Forrestal into the paid SC module with all the SC features. The exact same treatment ED is (was?) planning to give the Stennis (one full fidelity version for the payware SC module, while the barebones version remains free to use).

Sure, it's probably not that easy to implement in case of the Forrestal (different dimensions may require a different AI pathfinding logic) as with the Stennis, where you'd probably just need to replace the CVN number on one of the existing "Roosevelt" subclass models  (plus maybe some minor cosmetic changes). But. I believe it will enhance the appeal of the SC module, and would be a nice gesture by ED towards owners of the Supercarrier who have been (and still are) waiting a long time for any improvements (A-model Tomcat still gets the Hornet treatment!).

Edited January 3, 2022 by Jayhawk1971

[joey45]

 Maybe the Forrestal is the freebee and the other ships in the class has the SC bells and whistles..

[D4n]

carrier landing lights (deck) are only rendering at super close zoomlevel at night

Graphics settings (options.lua):

Spoiler

["graphics"] = {
        ["DOF"] = 0,
        ["LensEffects"] = 0,
        ["MSAA"] = 1,
        ["SSAA"] = 0,
        ["SSAO"] = 0,
        ["SSLR"] = 0,
        ["anisotropy"] = 4,
        ["aspect"] = 1.7777777777778,
        ["box_mouse_cursor"] = false,
        ["chimneySmokeDensity"] = 0,
        ["civTraffic"] = "low",
        ["clouds"] = 0,
        ["clutterMaxDistance"] = 0,
        ["cockpitGI"] = 0,
        ["effects"] = 3,
        ["flatTerrainShadows"] = 0,
        ["forestDetailsFactor"] = 0.1,
        ["forestDistanceFactor"] = 0.3,
        ["fullScreen"] = false,
        ["heatBlr"] = 0,
        ["height"] = 1080,
        ["lights"] = 2,
        ["messagesFontScale"] = 1,
        ["motionBlur"] = 0,
        ["multiMonitorSetup"] = "1camera",
        ["outputGamma"] = 3.5,
        ["preloadRadius"] = 150000,
        ["rainDroplets"] = 1,
        ["scaleGui"] = 1,
        ["sceneryDetailsFactor"] = 0.5,
        ["shadowTree"] = false,
        ["shadows"] = 2,
        ["sync"] = false,
        ["terrainTextures"] = "min",
        ["textures"] = 2,
        ["useDeferredShading"] = 1,
        ["visibRange"] = "Extreme",
        ["water"] = 0,
        ["width"] = 1920,

 

 

[fagulha]

1 minute ago, D4n said:

carrier landing lights (deck) are only rendering at super close zoomlevel at night

Graphics settings (options.lua):

  Hide contents

["graphics"] = {
        ["DOF"] = 0,
        ["LensEffects"] = 0,
        ["MSAA"] = 1,
        ["SSAA"] = 0,
        ["SSAO"] = 0,
        ["SSLR"] = 0,
        ["anisotropy"] = 4,
        ["aspect"] = 1.7777777777778,
        ["box_mouse_cursor"] = false,
        ["chimneySmokeDensity"] = 0,
        ["civTraffic"] = "low",
        ["clouds"] = 0,
        ["clutterMaxDistance"] = 0,
        ["cockpitGI"] = 0,
        ["effects"] = 3,
        ["flatTerrainShadows"] = 0,
        ["forestDetailsFactor"] = 0.1,
        ["forestDistanceFactor"] = 0.3,
        ["fullScreen"] = false,
        ["heatBlr"] = 0,
        ["height"] = 1080,
        ["lights"] = 2,
        ["messagesFontScale"] = 1,
        ["motionBlur"] = 0,
        ["multiMonitorSetup"] = "1camera",
        ["outputGamma"] = 3.5,
        ["preloadRadius"] = 150000,
        ["rainDroplets"] = 1,
        ["scaleGui"] = 1,
        ["sceneryDetailsFactor"] = 0.5,
        ["shadowTree"] = false,
        ["shadows"] = 2,
        ["sync"] = false,
        ["terrainTextures"] = "min",
        ["textures"] = 2,
        ["useDeferredShading"] = 1,
        ["visibRange"] = "Extreme",
        ["water"] = 0,
        ["width"] = 1920,

 

 

Set anisotropic x16 and leave feedback please.