Any plans to populate the deck?

[greyseal494]

I was really looking forward to the SC module but the ship is empty. Ridiculous! Even in XPlane 12 you have planes on the carrier. Big disappointment!

Edited April 11, 2024 by greyseal494

[markom]

You can do it manually... Sadly, it's rather difficult to save the layout for next time... It takes a bit to do it right.

[fagulha]

There are user templates available but, yes should be on DCS core by default.

Although, i love to populate my decks. Like a second hobby.

 

Edited April 14, 2024 by fagulha

[Northstar98]

I infinitely prefer adding stuff to an empty deck than having enforced static aircraft that you most likely won't be able to do anything about (such as the case with HB's Forrestal (albeit with deck equipment) and for the examples named), almost always forcing you to have 1 configuration. Especially so when they take up parking slots for useable aircraft (which aren't exactly numerous to begin with).

It's far easier to add things in the DCS mission editor than to remove things. The way it currently is gives me the flexibility to have whatever configuration I see fit. A system whereby there are static aircraft from the get go that I can't remove is inherently the least flexible option.

As for saving a configuration - that's already facilitated with the static templates. It may not be the most convenient thing in the world (it would be nice if the unit templates supported mixed unit types as a single group), but it does save time so long as you're using the same map.

Edited April 22, 2024 by Northstar98
Addendum

[buceador]

While I agree with the Forrestal comment completely I would also welcome a populated deck as a choice.  As I am not a developer I can say with impunity that it shouldn't be too difficult to have a standard populated or unpopulated carrier of choice 

 

[Raisuli]

1 hour ago, buceador said:

While I agree with the Forrestal comment completely I would also welcome a populated deck as a choice.  As I am not a developer I can say with impunity that it shouldn't be too difficult to have a standard populated or unpopulated carrier of choice 

 

Not the worst idea in the world, but it really doesn't take long to learn how to place an item on the carrier, link it, then copy/paste and change as needed.  Then whatever it is you're doing isn't blocked by that random static object in the way.  No development skills needed, just some well targeted point and click.

2 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I infinitely prefer adding stuff to an empty deck than having enforced statics that you most likely won't be able to do anything about (such as the case with HB's Forrestal), almost always forcing you to have 1 configuration. Especially so when they take up parking slots for useable aircraft (which is already small)

This.  Though I have to admit I'd really like to have models for some of those static items that already populate airfields because I like to set those up as well.  That and when I put a person on a hanger I mean for the person to be IN the hanger with the aircraft they've already fixed.  Still remember aircraft parked on top of shelters...now I still have to move the aircraft out if I want to pretend someone (probably Navy because the air force doesn't have ground crews...no wonder they struggle) works on it.

[buceador]

Yes, we are still in the crazy situation where if you place ground crew next to the aircraft in a hardened bunker, they end up on top of the structure!

[draconus]

On 4/11/2024 at 2:42 AM, greyseal494 said:

I was really looking forward to the SC module but the ship is empty.

And this is a good thing because you have the tools and means to populate it as you wish. Some may prefer to save on fps and space, others may wish for max realism and full deck, either in launch config or recovery... There already are user templates provided so you don't have to do it all by yourself. Some DCS default templates wouldn't hurt though, I admit.

[greyseal494]

Well, I'm just a casual player. Populating the deck takes quite some time to get a handle on.

[draconus]

2 hours ago, greyseal494 said:

Well, I'm just a casual player. Populating the deck takes quite some time to get a handle on.

Any decent mission have them populated already.

[Northstar98]

3 hours ago, greyseal494 said:

Well, I'm just a casual player. Populating the deck takes quite some time to get a handle on.

What I'd recommend you do is spend one session setting up the deck with static objects in whichever configuration you like. This may take some time (especially seeing as you will sometimes need to check alignment, as it isn't always possible to check in the mission editor - a 3D editor would certainly help here). Don't forget to link the static objects you place with the carrier unit.

Once you are done, go to edit -> save static template. Give it an appropriate name, filename and description. Contrary to what the name suggests, you can actually use this system with any unit type, including mixed. Then when you want to make a new mission, load the template you created via edit -> load static template. You'll be able to move the carrier where you desire, subtly change the configuration of static objects if you want, change the carrier's heading and waypoints etc.

The only downside with this method is that unlike the unit templates, these templates are map specific, so you may have to redo it for each map.

What would be nice, is if the unit templates could support groups with multiple unit types. Allowing say, naval units + static objects to be in one group. This way you'd have the same advantages as with the static templates, but you'd be able to reuse the template on whichever map you choose.

[buceador]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

The only downside with this method is that unlike the unit templates, these templates are map specific

Which is, sadly,  another glaring omission in he ME...