CV-59 Forrestal Feedback Thread

[WaffenCat]

Hello friends. 
Tell me please, what news about integrate CV-59 in SC module? 

Edited May 4, 2022 by WaffenCat

[draconus]

4 hours ago, WaffenCat said:

Tell me please, what news about integrate CV-59 in SC module?

No news.

[near_blind]

Last I heard, negotiations have broken down over the number of burbles present. HB opened with 1-3 Burbles, but ED insisted on no less than 6. 

[Nealius]

I'd give 10 burbles and 5 waveoffs for animated deck crew.

[Schlomo1933]

Pls give us (SC owners)  the animated deck crew 

[near_blind]

1 hour ago, Schlomo1933 said:

Pls give us (SC owners)  the animated deck crew 

I don't believe Heatblur are in charge of what does and does not get Eagle Dynamics' deck assets. 

[a1133620002]

On 4/11/2022 at 10:46 PM, Al-Azraq said:

Yeah, that as well.

Also, am I the only one having many difficulties spotting the deck yellow and white lines? It is just a black deck for me until I'm very close. I have a Reverb G2.

 

yes it's very dark for everyone, not only in VR but also in screen...and I have found out that this topic was broght right after the CV59 was introduced to us but still no improvement I guess.

[draconus]

5 hours ago, a1133620002 said:

...this topic was broght right after the CV59 was introduced to us but still no improvement I guess.

It was concluded that it is realistic as is. There are shiny carriers before deployment painted as new and then there are those that actually saw some action over seas. Fits pretty well to our cockpits.

Edited June 13, 2022 by draconus

[D4n]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

It was concluded that it is realistic as is.

concluded by who, where, source?

[draconus]

27 minutes ago, D4n said:

concluded by who, where, source?

 

 

[fagulha]

11 hours ago, a1133620002 said:

yes it's very dark for everyone, not only in VR but also in screen...and I have found out that this topic was broght right after the CV59 was introduced to us but still no improvement I guess.

In a simple search in DCS User Files you´ll find this: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3319070/

 

3 hours ago, D4n said:

concluded by who, where, source?

All carriers in deployment sooner or later get the deck darker due gases, fuel, oil.

Edited June 13, 2022 by fagulha

[Hawkeye91]

2 hours ago, fagulha said:

In a simple search in DCS User Files you´ll find this: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3319070/

 

All carriers in deployment sooner or later get the deck darker due gases, fuel, oil.

 

I think part of the problem is usability IRL vs usability in DCS. IRL it might not have been as big of an issue for pilots to not have as visible lines because, everything will be larger and basically infinite resolution with your real eyeballs vs us in 2D/VR have a limited about of resolution/smaller screen space making details like the lines MUCH more difficult to pick out.

 

So yeah, while it may match more realistically to real life appearances, its definitely not as realistic to real life in usability.

Its the same issue I have with all of the lights in the cockpit in DCS. They may have looked as rough as they do in real life, but real life pilots probably didn't have nearly as big of a problem for readability IRL as its much easier to pick out the details IRL so from a user standpoint we're sacrificing simulation usability for eye candy unfortunately.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Hawkeye91

[fagulha]

14 minutes ago, Hawkeye91 said:

I think part of the problem is usability IRL vs usability in DCS. IRL it might not have been as big of an issue for pilots to not have as visible lines because, everything will be larger and basically infinite resolution with your real eyeballs vs us in 2D/VR have a limited about of resolution/smaller screen space making details like the lines MUCH more difficult to pick out.

 

So yeah, while it may match more realistically to real life appearances, its definitely not as realistic to real life in usability.

Its the same issue I have with all of the lights in the cockpit in DCS. They may have looked as rough as they do in real life, but real life pilots probably didn't have nearly as big of a problem for readability IRL as its much easier to pick out the details IRL so from a user standpoint we're sacrificing simulation usability for eye candy unfortunately.

 

I fully agree.

That´s why i try to balance that whenever i can at my own needs between reality or usability, i choose the later (i´m using deck liveries with whiter marks so i can spot easier the deck in VR, or, the liverie i posted earlier for improved deck textures, both are a good example).

 

 

Edited June 13, 2022 by fagulha

[fagulha]

And a last one of the CV-59 with whiter markings:

Edited June 13, 2022 by fagulha

[draconus]

@Hawkeye91 it's a bold assumption that IRL it is all perfectly clear, no dirt, fogging or reflection on windscreen or visors (with no fov limits), clear air, clean decks, you name it. There are effects not yet simulated in DCS and some go against visibility.

[Hawkeye91]

13 minutes ago, draconus said:

@Hawkeye91 it's a bold assumption that IRL it is all perfectly clear, no dirt, fogging or reflection on windscreen or visors (with no fov limits), clear air, clean decks, you name it. There are effects not yet simulated in DCS and some go against visibility.

I would be pretty surprised if the navy was so cavalier they'd just let the deck remain in a state that was detrimental to the safety of the pilots that had to perform the landings. It would have to have some level of acceptable safety margin. Its pretty much unusable in DCS. 

Edit: look here, this is pretty unusable for alignment. Without the ACLS needs it would pretty much impossible to line up. If pilots had the same visibility IRL as we did IRL there's no way this would be same state.

null

null

Edited June 13, 2022 by Hawkeye91

[Hawkeye91]

13 minutes ago, draconus said:

@Hawkeye91 it's a bold assumption that IRL it is all perfectly clear, no dirt, fogging or reflection on windscreen or visors (with no fov limits), clear air, clean decks, you name it. There are effects not yet simulated in DCS and some go against visibility.

nullCloser still and zoomed in you still can't make out the landing area.

[LanceCriminal86]

And despite clear photos of carriers, on and returning from cruise with the decks in exactly the shape presented, I guess they are so cavalier. The issues instead may be the DCS lighting engine which sucks in terms of indirect and diffused lighting, LODs, and other factors that simply can't be easily remedied between reality and a sim.

Human eyeballs can't 'zoom in', we can focus our eyes and your eyesight will determine how clear and sharp the object appears. But Legolas eyes zooming in and out, not so much.

 

Discussing Forrestal's '88 cruise again, she left port late April '88. From the cruise book, she went through Suez twice, once in May, then returned 3 months later in August below.

Looking at the cruise book, she spent February '88 in New Orleans with a clearly fresh deck.

https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv59-88/048.htm

 

Underway replenishment during 16 July of 88, before the below in the Suez canal, so that's just under 2 months at sea and I believe a month after their initial transit into the Arabian Sea:

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-bow-view-of-the-aircraft-carrier-uss-forrestal-cv-59-refueling-from-the-replenishment-b846ca?zoom=true

Here again is part of the Forrestal's '88 cruise, while return transiting the Suez [6/8/88] to the Med. This was still before they were on the intensive North Atlantic exercise TEAM WORK '88. Crew were spelling out 108 on the bow for 108 days at sea.

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/an-aerial-port-beam-view-of-the-aircraft-carrier-uss-forrestal-cv-59-transiting-accee4?zoom=true

This is part of the landing area during Team Work '88 during September

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/helicopter-combat-support-squadron-6-hc-6-ch-46-sea-knight-helicopters-pick-1880e4

TGIF photo was October '88, on the way home to Mayport:
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-port-beam-view-of-the-aircraft-carrier-uss-forrestal-cv-59-with-a-formation-9701ba?zoom=true

 

I think it shows pretty clearly that within a month or two of the cruise you're going to see heavy wear and obscuring of deck markings. Yes, decks are hosed down/scrubbed but it seems quite clear to me that IRL, you should not expect clear deck markings for lineup. Now, if they are completely unreadable in DCS again I'd point to trying to simulate how our eyes see, and how things are lit. Looking at it in model viewer I'd point my finger at the lighting engine.

[a1133620002]

7 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

And despite clear photos of carriers, on and returning from cruise with the decks in exactly the shape presented, I guess they are so cavalier. The issues instead may be the DCS lighting engine which sucks in terms of indirect and diffused lighting, LODs, and other factors that simply can't be easily remedied between reality and a sim.

Human eyeballs can't 'zoom in', we can focus our eyes and your eyesight will determine how clear and sharp the object appears. But Legolas eyes zooming in and out, not so much.

 

Discussing Forrestal's '88 cruise again, she left port late April '88. From the cruise book, she went through Suez twice, once in May, then returned 3 months later in August below.

Looking at the cruise book, she spent February '88 in New Orleans with a clearly fresh deck.

https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cv59-88/048.htm

 

Underway replenishment during 16 July of 88, before the below in the Suez canal, so that's just under 2 months at sea and I believe a month after their initial transit into the Arabian Sea:

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-bow-view-of-the-aircraft-carrier-uss-forrestal-cv-59-refueling-from-the-replenishment-b846ca?zoom=true

Here again is part of the Forrestal's '88 cruise, while return transiting the Suez [6/8/88] to the Med. This was still before they were on the intensive North Atlantic exercise TEAM WORK '88. Crew were spelling out 108 on the bow for 108 days at sea.

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/an-aerial-port-beam-view-of-the-aircraft-carrier-uss-forrestal-cv-59-transiting-accee4?zoom=true

This is part of the landing area during Team Work '88 during September

https://nara.getarchive.net/media/helicopter-combat-support-squadron-6-hc-6-ch-46-sea-knight-helicopters-pick-1880e4

TGIF photo was October '88, on the way home to Mayport:
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-port-beam-view-of-the-aircraft-carrier-uss-forrestal-cv-59-with-a-formation-9701ba?zoom=true

 

I think it shows pretty clearly that within a month or two of the cruise you're going to see heavy wear and obscuring of deck markings. Yes, decks are hosed down/scrubbed but it seems quite clear to me that IRL, you should not expect clear deck markings for lineup. Now, if they are completely unreadable in DCS again I'd point to trying to simulate how our eyes see, and how things are lit. Looking at it in model viewer I'd point my finger at the lighting engine.

Nice pictures! I also found some pictures from different years. Clearly the Navy will try to maintain those paints if it's not usable anymore!

I think HB can find a balance which gives the CV59 a worn/used look but still making players to be able to see those lines.
The navy is not painting those lines just for "historical look", I think those lines are really important for helping pilots, not only in sims but also in real life.
I am not sure if the CV59 has the Long-Range Laser Lineup System but it's only in DCS super carrier anyway so the guiding line is our only visual indication for lineup.

And,  I believe that there must be a standard from the U.S. Navy regarding the maintainance of indication lines' clarity. 

[LanceCriminal86]

Again, you're not reading what I wrote: The Forrestal had fresh painted decks in February before she left on the 1988 cruise in late April. Within 2 months, her decks looked about like they currently do in DCS. Hell, the fresh deck photo was February, so it's entirely possible that by the time they were done with pre-cruise workups if those were done Feb-April, then the decks already looked worn and grimy by the time she left.

If you REALLY feel like you only want the ship to look like it just left port then cool, go grab one of the texture mods. At this point to me the textures themselves are spot on for a carrier that's actually on cruise, at least from the era that the Forrestal operated in.

Also, cherry picking random photos with fresh decks isn't a convincing argument at all. I went through and showed photos across a cruise roughly from start to finish. The one YOU posted was from FLEET WEEK where they pretty the ships up (and those weren't even her usual squadrons aboard), and the second you didn't provide a date or cruise.

 

Y'all keep "feeling" one way, but the evidence appears to say something else. And that something else may be that the paint wasn't relied on as heavily as YOU think, or the reality is that lighting in DCS falls short and makes the ship seem darker than her decks actually should appear under daylight. Remember that even if the pilots on the 1988 cruise were on their first cruise with the squadron, they were still carrier qual'd aviators and had done traps in workups, and of course all the flightops as the decks got dirtier and dirtier. It would seem clear to me that by then, and moreso for the experienced pilots, the deck lines were not critical. Following their gauges, timing, and the FLOLS it would seem were more important.

 

EDIT: This sounds EXACTLY like the cockpit texture debate all over again

Edited June 14, 2022 by LanceCriminal86

[Hawkeye91]

9 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Again, you're not reading what I wrote: The Forrestal had fresh painted decks in February before she left on the 1988 cruise in late April. Within 2 months, her decks looked about like they currently do in DCS. Hell, the fresh deck photo was February, so it's entirely possible that by the time they were done with pre-cruise workups if those were done Feb-April, then the decks already looked worn and grimy by the time she left.

If you REALLY feel like you only want the ship to look like it just left port then cool, go grab one of the texture mods. At this point to me the textures themselves are spot on for a carrier that's actually on cruise, at least from the era that the Forrestal operated in.

Also, cherry picking random photos with fresh decks isn't a convincing argument at all. I went through and showed photos across a cruise roughly from start to finish. The one YOU posted was from FLEET WEEK where they pretty the ships up (and those weren't even her usual squadrons aboard), and the second you didn't provide a date or cruise.

 

Y'all keep "feeling" one way, but the evidence appears to say something else. And that something else may be that the paint wasn't relied on as heavily as YOU think, or the reality is that lighting in DCS falls short and makes the ship seem darker than her decks actually should appear under daylight. Remember that even if the pilots on the 1988 cruise were on their first cruise with the squadron, they were still carrier qual'd aviators and had done traps in workups, and of course all the flightops as the decks got dirtier and dirtier. It would seem clear to me that by then, and moreso for the experienced pilots, the deck lines were not critical. Following their gauges, timing, and the FLOLS it would seem were more important.

 

EDIT: This sounds EXACTLY like the cockpit texture debate all over again

 

This is a difference of opinion on the design philosophy HB has chosen. Visual fidelity has been chosen over our ability to use information given to us in the sim to be able to fly in a similar manner as the real pilots could IRL. 
 

In my opinion, things like the forestal deck lines should make up for the disparity between the limitations of the sim's lightning engine and what pilots could make out in real life. I would rather be able to fly like the real pilots could by getting the same visual indications they could. So yeah the lines don't have to look perfectly new, but a good compromise between wear and tear and usability to make up for the limitations of the simulators lighting engine and just the fact that we're looking through a small window with limited resolution. A compromise if you will. Currently its all or nothing with the deck lines right now. I don't care much for the texture addons as they look too clean. I'm a happy medium kinda guy.



I think another part of the problem is the green filter effect on the F14 HUD washes out a lot of detail when looking through it so that could be part of the problem we're seeing as well.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Hawkeye91

[Hawkeye91]

The lines are MUCH more clearly seen in the external  view when not looking through the washed out green HUD.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Hawkeye91

[Jackjack171]

6 minutes ago, Hawkeye91 said:

The lines are MUCH more clearly seen in the external  view when not looking through the washed out green HUD.

 

USS Forrestal Grey Island and HD markings (digitalcombatsimulator.com)
Try this on for size brother. I use it as I fly the "A" and I never have a problem. With this, I can see through the HUD just fine.  @LanceCriminal86 was spot on about the RL deck. Some pics should be taken with a grain of salt. The Deck get messed up just after one week of flying! During cruise, if the deck is really worn, and it will be, we have to paint the markings again. We scrub it nightly, which leads it to have an ashy look to it. It is a PITA. But we do it because the deck is so bad. It doesn't take long for it to not look like we just left the shipyard! Also, the deck is painted for photo shoots, like the ones you have, except the last one. IMHO, the problem that we have is a combination of the HUD and the lighting. When I choose good weather, the sight picture is fine. Get a cloud layer or overcast, I see what you see, but not with the repaint.

 I hope this helps!

23 hours ago, fagulha said:

I fully agree.

That´s why i try to balance that whenever i can at my own needs between reality or usability, i choose the later (i´m using deck liveries with whiter marks so i can spot easier the deck in VR, or, the liverie i posted earlier for improved deck textures, both are a good example).

 

 

 

Nice deck setup!

[LanceCriminal86]

I suppose it's worth asking as well: What gamma setting are folks using? A while back Cobra stated that they calibrate at a Gamma setting of 2.2 for DCS. Gamma, brightness/contrast settings on your monitor could be making it tougher to see as well. I haven't seen Victory205 in a bit but perhaps this would be something to check with him as well in terms of the HUD and windscreen tinting.

[a1133620002]

11 hours ago, LanceCriminal86 said:

Again, you're not reading what I wrote: The Forrestal had fresh painted decks in February before she left on the 1988 cruise in late April. Within 2 months, her decks looked about like they currently do in DCS. Hell, the fresh deck photo was February, so it's entirely possible that by the time they were done with pre-cruise workups if those were done Feb-April, then the decks already looked worn and grimy by the time she left.

If you REALLY feel like you only want the ship to look like it just left port then cool, go grab one of the texture mods. At this point to me the textures themselves are spot on for a carrier that's actually on cruise, at least from the era that the Forrestal operated in.

Also, cherry picking random photos with fresh decks isn't a convincing argument at all. I went through and showed photos across a cruise roughly from start to finish. The one YOU posted was from FLEET WEEK where they pretty the ships up (and those weren't even her usual squadrons aboard), and the second you didn't provide a date or cruise.

 

Y'all keep "feeling" one way, but the evidence appears to say something else. And that something else may be that the paint wasn't relied on as heavily as YOU think, or the reality is that lighting in DCS falls short and makes the ship seem darker than her decks actually should appear under daylight. Remember that even if the pilots on the 1988 cruise were on their first cruise with the squadron, they were still carrier qual'd aviators and had done traps in workups, and of course all the flightops as the decks got dirtier and dirtier. It would seem clear to me that by then, and moreso for the experienced pilots, the deck lines were not critical. Following their gauges, timing, and the FLOLS it would seem were more important.

 

EDIT: This sounds EXACTLY like the cockpit texture debate all over again

 

hey man, chilll!

I also agree what you are saying in a way! I'll also do some more testing to know if it's my graphic setting or my flying skill's problem.