Do you need Supercarrier DLC to land on the new Admiral Kuznetsov?

[Flogger23m]

Does the new Admiral Kuznetsov 3D model require the DCS Supercarrier DLC to be able to land on it?

I'm not interested in any of the personal/crew functionality, just wondering if I can land on it or if I am relegated to the 20 year old 3D model.

Edited March 14, 2024 by Flogger23m

[draconus]

2 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

Does the new Admiral Kuznetsov 3D model require the DCS Supercarrier DLC to be able to land on it?

Yes, afaik you can't use it as a player but it can be part of the mission.

[Flogger23m]

Thanks, that is a bit disappointing. Was wondering why I was unable to land despite many attempts. Placed the non-2017 version and landed easily.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

15 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

Does the new Admiral Kuznetsov 3D model require the DCS Supercarrier DLC to be able to land on it?

Yes, as is confirmed in the Supercarrier FAQ:

 

[Flogger23m]

On 3/14/2024 at 2:26 PM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Yes, as is confirmed in the Supercarrier FAQ:

 

 

Thanks. Is there any modern 3D model for US carriers that work without Supercarrier? I assume all of the newer 3D models are also locked behind the DLC. I know there is an older carrier 3D model for a Nimitz class but I cannot recall which carrier that was.

I do understand locking the functionality like below deck hangars and crew-able positions behind paid content, but I'm not quite sure I am willing to spend $25 (sale price) on two 3D models.

 

[Dragon1-1]

The free version of Stennis got updated to SC standard, I think. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

58 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The free version of Stennis got updated to SC standard, I think. 

Only visually as far as I understand. You can have the full functionality on the free Stennis, but for that you need the Supercarrier module.

 

  

1 hour ago, Flogger23m said:

I'm not quite sure I am willing to spend $25 (sale price) on two 3D models

It's quite a bit more than purely 3D models: you get the communication aspect, and also the deck crew that will (soon) also help you taxiing to the correct cat, and guide you to your parking spot.
If you fly Naval aircraft, the immersion factor makes it quite worth the investment  

Edited March 15, 2024 by Raven (Elysian Angel)

[Dragon1-1]

54 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Only visually as far as I understand.

That was the question, though. If all you want is a decent looking carrier, Stennis works.

[Flogger23m]

27 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That was the question, though. If all you want is a decent looking carrier, Stennis works.

 

Just tried it, that works. Nice to have a basic option for take off & landing.

[draconus]

10 hours ago, Flogger23m said:

I'm not quite sure I am willing to spend $25 (sale price) on two 3D models

There are free 2 week trials, you know.

[Dragon1-1]

That doesn't help him, though. As far as I understand, it's not a one-off thing, but rather that he's interested in a small part of what Supercarrier offers. Free trials don't really help with that. They also don't apply on Steam.

[Flogger23m]

3 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That doesn't help him, though. As far as I understand, it's not a one-off thing, but rather that he's interested in a small part of what Supercarrier offers. Free trials don't really help with that. They also don't apply on Steam.

Exactly. I don't mind the higher functionality and crew positions to be behind paid DLC, that certainly required a lot of development time. The only thing that annoys me is when basic 3D models and whatnot are behind paid DLC. Thankfully there is a basic option to takeoff and land with the F-18.

I personally have zero interest in playing as a carrier crew member so the module is of little interest. I would be annoyed if things like weapons were locked behind paid DLC, like new weapon 3D models, or certain models of AIM-120s, etc.

[Dragon1-1]

That's why you get SC-quality visuals on the Stennis. Pity about the Kuznetsov, but I guess it was kind of a side project and we don't have an FF aircraft for it, anyway. If we ever get a Su-33, perhaps it could become part of that package, especially as it has no SC functionality.

[draconus]

13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That doesn't help him, though

He wasn't sure if it's worth it for him, so it helps him to check that, to make sure. Everybody have to decide for themselves.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

11 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

especially as it has no SC functionality

To be fair, adding SC functionality to the Admiral Kuznetsov would double ED's workload, as I'm sure the Russian procedures are quite different from the US ones.

[Dragon1-1]

I don't think it would double, after all, the end goal is the same: launch an aircraft from the boat. Russian procedures would require additional code, but not coding a whole different system from scratch. In fact, I don't think it functions much differently from SC, although I'm pretty sure it looks different. The biggest change would be the comms for landing.

There are other priorities, but if they can get permission to make a Su-33, then this should be put on agenda IMO.

[Flogger23m]

On 3/16/2024 at 3:57 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

That's why you get SC-quality visuals on the Stennis. Pity about the Kuznetsov, but I guess it was kind of a side project and we don't have an FF aircraft for it, anyway. If we ever get a Su-33, perhaps it could become part of that package, especially as it has no SC functionality.

 

That is what confused me. If it had crew-able positions I would understand including that as part of a paid bundle. But for basic landing/taking off I think they should just replace the old 3D model with the new one.

It would be like adding a new KC-135 module with crew-able boom positions, which certainly should be be a paid module it you want to fly or control the boom. But then deciding to prohibit people from refueling from it in F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, etc. unless they too own the KC-135 module. 

[Dragon1-1]

Honestly, in its current state it would make sense to give everyone the upgraded Kuznetsov, especially since there's a big model overhaul going on and we're hopefully getting rid of the old ones. They already axed the oldest Nimitz model. The idea might have been to add SC features to Kuznetsov eventually, but I don't know if it's still in plans.

[Flogger23m]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Honestly, in its current state it would make sense to give everyone the upgraded Kuznetsov, especially since there's a big model overhaul going on and we're hopefully getting rid of the old ones. They already axed the oldest Nimitz model. The idea might have been to add SC features to Kuznetsov eventually, but I don't know if it's still in plans.

They can always do what they did with the F-15E. Keep both around, just make one have the new 3D model/textures but the basic functionality. Then for those with the paid module they can use the 2017 version which has the crew-able positions.

[draconus]

They could but they didn't. They explained some time ago that it took man hours to develop so they wanted to charge money for it. It's like a bundle that doesn't suit you. You decide for yourself if it's worth it for your case. If you only care for russian carrier you'll get better model to use with some minor functionalities added, like better multi-aircraft handling and working wheel stops.

Edited March 22, 2024 by draconus