CV-59 Forrestal Feedback Thread

[Uxi]

Best thing ED could do spills be official Mod repository and integration into the game UI.  Community would fill out escorts and assets from each era with much more volume and detail (see all the livery). They would just need to make sure all the weapons are modeled. 

 I want to see the Long Beach and Virginia CGN and the nuclear Bainbridge etc

[D4n]

11 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

So I guess the FLOLS is never getting fixed?

Seems so... Also still waiting for that barricade net, which will turn carriers into epic operating platforms for prop aircraft aswell

[WarthogOsl]

Wo

14 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

So I guess the FLOLS is never getting fixed?

Or have the proper crew animations for the F-14A?

[draconus]

10 hours ago, WarthogOsl said:

Or have the proper crew animations for the F-14A?

There's no animated crew on Forrestal.

[Nealius]

Crew has been unlocked for the Stennis. There's a possibility the same will be true for the Forrestal in the future.

[fagulha]

3 hours ago, Nealius said:

Crew has been unlocked for the Stennis. There's a possibility the same will be true for the Forrestal in the future.

The CVN-74 was part of the Supercarrier module. First ED launched CVN-71, 72 and 73 and afterward was planned the remaining carriers, CVN-75, and finally CVN-74 Stennis. The only thing that was not planned is the updated old Stennis to a new default one with the standards of the Supercarrier module (without the deck crew of course).

[D4n]

On 11/20/2022 at 2:27 PM, Бойовий Сокіл said:

This isn't the super carrier though? So no barricade is planned.

Indeed, but I'm assuming Heatblur realizes what a big revenue they could make if they get a deal with ED to get animated crew + barricade net (or even all supercarrier features) on the Forrestal aswell (for all F-14 module owners for example).

 

On 11/21/2022 at 2:04 PM, fagulha said:

The CVN-74 was part of the Supercarrier module. First ED launched CVN-71, 72 and 73 and afterward was planned the remaining carriers, CVN-75, and finally CVN-74 Stennis. The only thing that was not planned is the updated old Stennis to a new default one with the standards of the Supercarrier module (without the deck crew of course).

Huh, so are there seriously 2 Stennis versions in DCS now? One for Supercarrier owners only, one for everyone?

[draconus]

6 minutes ago, D4n said:

Huh, so are there seriously 2 Stennis versions in DCS now? One for Supercarrier owners only, one for everyone?

No, there is only one but it got updated to the SC quality and some of its features depend now on user's SC ownership, namely animated crew or advanced comms.

[fagulha]

1 hour ago, D4n said:

 

 

Huh, so are there seriously 2 Stennis versions in DCS now? One for Supercarrier owners only, one for everyone?

Read again what i wrote.

[Nealius]

On 11/21/2022 at 10:04 PM, fagulha said:

The CVN-74 was part of the Supercarrier module. First ED launched CVN-71, 72 and 73 and afterward was planned the remaining carriers, CVN-75, and finally CVN-74 Stennis. The only thing that was not planned is the updated old Stennis to a new default one with the standards of the Supercarrier module (without the deck crew of course).

Whether it was planned or not is irrelevant. It wasn't planned for SC comms to be an unlockable feature either, and those work on the Forrestal. Ultimately it will come down to ED's/HB's decision on whether or not to integrate a deck crew on the Forrestal like it is now integrated on the Stennis, but given the precedent set by the Stennis I believe it will, at some point, happen.

Edited November 23, 2022 by Nealius

[RustBelt]

4 hours ago, D4n said:

Indeed, but I'm assuming Heatblur realizes what a big revenue they could make if they get a deal with ED to get animated crew + barricade net (or even all supercarrier features) on the Forrestal aswell (for all F-14 module owners for example).

 

It’s not up to Heatblur. Supercarrier and its features are an Eagle Dynamics product. If ED wants to let third parties use the SC assets, THEY have to do something they are historically loathe to do, which is make a documented API and provide their code.
 

They aren’t that kind of company. So the alternative is you have to wait for ED and ONLY ED to step up. Which, how long have we been waiting for the SC to set up a Tomcat specific Ball? Or LSO grading for the F-14?

 

Heck, how many YEARS now has the “new missile API” been just around the corner?

[Nealius]

Anyone else getting consistent stutters on Forrestal when crossing the ramp or approaching the end of the angled deck after arrestment, but only with motion blur setting on? Turning it off eliminates these stutters, but they don't appear on the Supercarrier, only Forrestal.

[Sepp666]

The Forrestal looks so good, it's a shame that ED will not include it to the SC module. Here we have another class not just a different hull number and a few things here and there. It's a joke... 

[LanceCriminal86]

How do you expect it to be integrated into a module/framework that itself isn't even partway finished? Why should they burn up focus and coding effort on something that ED themselves haven't even completed and ironed out for their own ships? There's plenty for them to work on with just the F-14 itself while ED figures out exactly what they're doing on the SC module/framework. Right now we can't even access the deck crew to skin them because ED encrypted those away somewhere.

[RustBelt]

Exactly. Super Carrier is barely early access and seemingly low priority. 
 

They still haven’t gotten new missile stuff to 3rd party yet

[tms0018]

On 11/18/2022 at 6:48 AM, Northstar98 said:

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)

Sorry for such a late replay, but you are right an updated 80's naval assets pack would be perfect for the Kola map. Then add in the Kiev Class and the Forger as AI units and it would be perfect. 

And you make great points about the Spruance, vs implementing Belknaps as the guided missile cruisers to replace our too modern Ticos and Charles F. Adams as the guided missile destroys to replace the Burkes. My idea behind the Spruance was it wouldn't be too much extra work to model both the Spruance and the derivative Kidd class. So, you get two different classes for about the work of maybe one and a half. 

 

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, tms0018 said:

Sorry for such a late replay

No worries

5 minutes ago, tms0018 said:

but you are right an updated 80's naval assets pack would be perfect for the Kola map. Then add in the Kiev Class and the Forger as AI units and it would be perfect.

Yeah, that would be great, could re-live SF2:NA. And yes, 80s assets for the Kola map are really sorely needed, (heck, they're needed for the Forrestalas it stands, though at least if you squint hard enough you can fit the Ticonderoga and Oliver Hazard Perry).

5 minutes ago, tms0018 said:

And you make great points about the Spruance, vs implementing Belknaps as the guided missile cruisers to replace our too modern Ticos and Charles F. Adams as the guided missile destroys to replace the Burkes. My idea behind the Spruance was it wouldn't be too much extra work to model both the Spruance and the derivative Kidd class. So, you get two different classes for about the work of maybe one and a half.

That's a good point, though with the Charles F. Adams you could also do a Lütjens-class with some very minor tweaks - though both the Kidd and the Lütjens aren't very numerous at all.

Don't get me wrong though a Spruance should definitely be on the table should these assets be considered - no battle group is complete without them. I just think, for the time being, it might be better to focus on ships more geared up for AAW for the time being, given the limitations of the current naval environment.

[RustBelt]

Can’t complain it doesn’t look wrong when it doesn’t work at all.

[Nealius]

It's usually only on when there's aircraft buzzing around. 

[marbessi]

Is there a bug with Forrestal deck? Launching from catapults or landing on it causes a small amount of damage to the deck and to the plane too. I had one wheel of landing gear stuck after launch. 

[Clunk1001]

7 minutes ago, marbessi said:

Is there a bug with Forrestal deck? Launching from catapults or landing on it causes a small amount of damage to the deck and to the plane too. I had one wheel of landing gear stuck after launch. 

I’ve been getting the same issue for a few months.  “Forrestal Damaged 1%” message on cat launch.

[Tweety777]

Have they removed the armor of the flightdeck? I got the same issue but with 0% damage. 

[RustBelt]

Always been an issue. Some DCS weird to do with an object being both a vehicle with Hit points and a collision box, and a landable surface simultaneously. Making “ground” that moves has been a consistent challenge for DCS if you recall the Ice Rink carrier days. 

[joey45]

I think they need to tell the collision Mesh that it is a runway.

[Jackjack171]

Is animated deck crew for the Forrestal still being looked at? Not trying to stir the pot, I just hadn't heard anything in a while (I'm patient). I hope that it is not a dead issue, CV-59 has that nostalgic effect and I enjoy it very much.