This is new...I think?

[Raisuli]

Radioed the Big Stick, got 'Not authorized to land' back.  I've never seen that response before...not even sure when it showed up, because this isn't my first timehere...last time I got no response at all.  Now I wonder what else they've snuck in under the radar.

Ignored the twit behind the radio because that is, after all, my carrier.  Got the IFOLS on approach, but I was a little flat and died spectacularly in a ramp strike.  Maybe I should move all those aircraft away from the aft end of the boat while I do this.

But...me.  A little obsessive at times, and that's not going to stop me.  Now that the F-16 has a movable hook, and there's no arresting gear at land bases which makes me wonder why they bothered, I'm going to find out just how poorly modeled the undercarriage is! 

Sure, I'll have to do a repair to get the hook back up, but I have to do that with the F-15E, too.  I know there's enough deck to get airborne with a slick jet!  That or I just switch slots, but I see no reason not to get as proficient in the F-16 as I am in the F-18 (which isn't very according to the LSO, but I ignore him, too).

(It would be seriously cool if they got women to do voice work for things like LSO, A2AR, ATC, RIO/WSO/Gunner, etc, but that's a different topic for a different thread)

Besides, Wonky and Mover did it, so it must be okay. 

No, I won't do that on a multi-player server.  You're not likely to find me on one of those anyway (and I use the -18 around bird farms out of respect for the spirit of the game and other players), so problem solved.  As long as the selective realism crowd stays off my single player server everyone will remain happy 

[Silver_Dragon]

Not bad if ED build the Arresting gear on bases (some maps has the propper marks), but missing the gear and propper funtionality to emergency recovery. Surely, a very low priority.

[Raisuli]

10 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Not bad if ED build the Arresting gear on bases (some maps has the propper marks), but missing the gear and propper funtionality to emergency recovery. Surely, a very low priority.

Land based IFOLS and arresting gear in general would be a really cool (and limited utility) low priority, which makes me wonder why they took the time to model the hooks.  Maybe the hook was easy?  I'm sure that was an informed decision, just don't know the criteria for it.

[Iron Sights]

I think they modeled the hooks for accuracy to actual module. With that said I think one day arresting gear working on the fields may be a thing. I will say it’s a long way off, if ever. To me not the biggest priority, given some of updates I would like to see come first.

[draconus]

On 10/7/2023 at 8:03 PM, Raisuli said:

Radioed the Big Stick, got 'Not authorized to land' back.  I've never seen that response before

Is your Supercarrier module installed and enabled?

[Dangerzone]

On 10/8/2023 at 5:32 AM, Raisuli said:

Land based IFOLS and arresting gear in general would be a really cool (and limited utility) low priority, which makes me wonder why they took the time to model the hooks.  Maybe the hook was easy?  I'm sure that was an informed decision, just don't know the criteria for it.

Have you ever spent time with real devs? I reckon the conversation went like this:

D1: We need to model the hooks

D2: Why...

D1: Coz... there's an aircraft carrier in DCS

D2: Aaah. Of course.

Dev's like to have fun too, and I bet more than one during their development had some fun seeing if they could nail a landing on the aircraft carrier. 

Sure... being 'authentic' was probably in that list too.... somewhere. 

As for voices - I would love for DCS to have the ability to have 4 or 5 different voices for each call, and that it's random based on each session, just so there was a bit of variety, but I appreciate as far as priorities go, this would be so low it wouldn't see the light of day.

[MAXsenna]

44 minutes ago, Dangerzone said:

As for voices - I would love for DCS to have the ability to have 4 or 5 different voices for each call, and that it's random based on each session, just so there was a bit of variety, but I appreciate as far as priorities go, this would be so low it wouldn't see the light of day.

Will hopefully come with new ATC. As for the new ATC, a good solution could be to open it up for the community, so we could have relevant accents for different scenarios. 

Cheers! 

[Raisuli]

2 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Have you ever spent time with real devs? I reckon the conversation went like this:

<Development conference deleted>

As for voices - I would love for DCS to have the ability to have 4 or 5 different voices for each call, and that it's random based on each session, just so there was a bit of variety, but I appreciate as far as priorities go, this would be so low it wouldn't see the light of day.

They sit on the other side of the building because I quit writing real code decades ago.  There's one in whose office I sit all the time because somehow I ended up responsible for finding all the bugs in his code.  The good news is he also collects actual parts from real airplanes (as opposed to my fake airplane collection) so we also have other things to talk about.

Despite their best efforts I still refuse to go into QA. 

Voice acting, as I understand it, is much more complex and difficult, not to mention time consuming and expensive, than people realize.  Not as simple as asking your buddy to speak a few words into the boom mic on his headset...   

[RustBelt]

Voice acting is readily available by hobby semi-pros like myself Spud, and many others on the internet. Devs think everything is "hard" but most of the time I'm convinced that is just their way of saying "I don't want to".