When will the CV59 have the function of a super aircraft carrier?

[dandan]

Compared to a super aircraft carrier, the CV59 without sailors is a ghost ship. When will the CV59 have the function of a super aircraft carrier?F14 is an excellent work, and I hope CV59 is also an excellent work， I am willing to pay to purchase the CV59 Super Carrier feature

Edited June 23, 2024 by dandan

[Cobra847]

We'd also like this and will touch on the topic with ED soon.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

If it becomes payware, perhaps there will be sufficient financial incentive to include CV60-61-62 as well

A girl can dream

[DJ Reonic]

What would be best, in my opinion, is to make the supercarrier functionality something that can be added to any catobar carrier. That way HB could add deck crew to the Forrestal and mod makers could add them to their creations.

Obviously, the air boss stuff would have to be added by ED.

Edited July 15, 2024 by DJ Reonic

[RustBelt]

I’m guessing if they had built the Supercarrier assets to be able to do that, they would already be doing that. It’s highly likely that the skittle brigade and ATC are dependent on the SC core module in a way that isn’t transferrable.  

[draconus]

14 hours ago, RustBelt said:

I’m guessing if they had built the Supercarrier assets to be able to do that, they would already be doing that. It’s highly likely that the skittle brigade and ATC are dependent on the SC core module in a way that isn’t transferrable.  

Not this again. Where do the people get that something can't be done in a computer program? I think it came from helpdesk and admins in the first place

SC comms can be added to any unit. SC deck crew can be put on any unit. SC AI paths can be made for any unit. It just takes will, time and money.

[RustBelt]

It comes from how this PARTICULAR piece of software is developed and maintained.  
 

Start from tabula rasa and yea if you can imagine it, you can code to make it happen. Legacy code to a third party is much less amenable to that. 
 

We just end up back at “I wish HB would make their own full game” which at this point would easily be a 200 person $70-100 Million project. To maybe sell to 10,000 users? 

[dandan]

Can HS create a new super carrier DLC? A fully functional ship that meets F4 and F14 standards. I want some supercarriers from 1965 to 1991, where people can move freely on the aviation deck and hangar deck. I really like the super aircraft carriers from the peak of the Cold War, even if the DLC is expensive, I would still buy them. This is my dream, I hope it can come true

[Stackup]

On 7/27/2024 at 2:24 AM, dandan said:

Can HS create a new super carrier DLC? A fully functional ship that meets F4 and F14 standards. I want some supercarriers from 1965 to 1991, where people can move freely on the aviation deck and hangar deck. I really like the super aircraft carriers from the peak of the Cold War, even if the DLC is expensive, I would still buy them. This is my dream, I hope it can come true

ED probably wouldn't allow 3rd party devs to do a separate super carrier module since they already have one and it might take away sales depending on what was offered.  We've seen that the feature can be turned on and off with the free CVN-74 being updated to have deck crew for those with the super carrier module.  For those who don't own it, the deck crew is turned off.  So for any free carrier added to the base game, it would be possible for ED to add deck crew to them.  With the Stennis it was simple because it's identical to the super carrier exclusive ships.  The Forrestal will be more work as it doesn't have the same deck layout and the same goes for any future carriers, like the straight deck Essex class coming from Mag3 with the F4U Corsair, which would also need new crew models as well to fit the time period. 

It would be cool to see the Midway class, Kitty Hawk class, and USS Enterprise represented in DCS as well, although it's unclear how that would happen.  Heatblur still has the Saratoga, Ranger, and Independence to finish, and their roadmap states the Ranger and Independence, require "larger reworks and relegated to the distant future."  So don't expect anything anytime soon.

[Castor Troy]

Didn't HB years ago show deckcrew progress for the Forrestal, before ED dropped their SC?

[Vettefan]

Would be great to see that implemented: Especially now with the new Iraq map coming and a Forrestal class carrier (USS Ranger, if I am not mistaken, which is close enough) that was operating in the gulf it would add a significant boost in reality and immersion…

Just saying…

[Viper33]

I'd be happy to have the Saratoga as a variant and the FLOLS LOD on the Forrestal fixed since it came out. It's clear the CV's were soemthing they did not want to do but talked themselves into and have sicne paid little attention to fixing the bugs since release.

[Northstar98]

On 7/28/2024 at 10:12 PM, Stackup said:

Heatblur still has the Saratoga, Ranger, and Independence to finish, and their roadmap states the Ranger and Independence, require "larger reworks and relegated to the distant future."  So don't expect anything anytime soon.

Mmm, not to mention some of the errors and issues (albeit most of them minor) on the Forrestal as is:

• As Viper33 alluded to, the datum lights bloom significantly at a distance. This could be solved if there were different lights for each LOD, such that they better scale.
• The lights in general don't properly account for LOS and have the similar blooming issue. The landing area lights also abruptly disappear at a certain distance.
• For the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS:
  • The barrels are way too long
  • It's silent
  • It's depicted as possibly the wrong block - it's currently depicted as a Block 1 with the larger magazine, but I've only ever found images (including those close to end of Forrestal's service life) showing Block 0 - the difference isn't trivial:
    • 989/990 rounds as opposed to 1550
    • smaller elevation limits (+80 -10, compared to +80, -20)
    • If this is to be believed, a significantly reduced elevation search capability (0-5°), not that DCS models any of Phalanx's sensors (apart from LPWS)
• The AN/SPS-48C antenna completely lacks the supporting structure behind it (the ships with the AN/SPS-48E all have this) and shouldn't be solid between the rows of elements (and should have more of a grille look to it - though at some angles it does look solid)
• The AN/SPS-49(V)5, AN/SPN-43B and Mk 23 TAS have the wrong shape (with the SPN-43B easily being the worst offender), no other ship with an AN/SPS-49 or SPN-43 in DCS has the same issue.
• The AN/SPS-64(V)9 antenna isn't present.
• The radars above rotate in the wrong direction (with the exception of the AN/SPN-43B, which nods for some reason, with its IFF antenna rotating independently).
• The Mk 95 directors don't track targets.
• We can't remove the static deck equipment.
• The catapults have inaccuracies.
• The propellers don't rotate.
• The elevators are animated, but there's no hangar present.

[RustBelt]

The lights/LoD are all still part of the “waiting for Vulkan” issue. They don’t want to put in work that’s supposed to be undone with the “soon” switch to Vulkan. 
 

And by this point it probably will be left until the A-6 or Navy Phantom at the earliest. 

[Viper33]

1 hour ago, RustBelt said:

The lights/LoD are all still part of the “waiting for Vulkan” issue. They don’t want to put in work that’s supposed to be undone with the “soon” switch to Vulkan. 
 

And by this point it probably will be left until the A-6 or Navy Phantom at the earliest. 

How is a LOD change vulkan related? You have no idea what you are talking about.

[RustBelt]

On 10/29/2024 at 7:26 PM, Viper33 said:

How is a LOD change vulkan related? You have no idea what you are talking about.

Because they’re still using the crappy cataracts view light source filter kludges from 2.5 to deal with lights at distances. Remember that whole mess?

[Viper33]

13 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Because they’re still using the crappy cataracts view light source filter kludges from 2.5 to deal with lights at distances. Remember that whole mess?

The why is this not an issue with the super carrier? That's such a poor excuse. Obviously there is more modern tech these days to handle light sources but fixing this should be a trivial non-issue if they actually cared about their products they released.

[RustBelt]

5 hours ago, Viper33 said:

The why is this not an issue with the super carrier? That's such a poor excuse. Obviously there is more modern tech these days to handle light sources but fixing this should be a trivial non-issue if they actually cared about their products they released.

Because the super carrier is ED. Why do the Hornet and Vipers position lights work while the tomcats are dim? 
 

Search the tomcat subforum. It was specifically addressed that there was lighting work that wasn’t going to be temporarily fixed due to “imminent” big changes in DCS (Vulkan). Easily 2-3 years ago back when Vulkan was planned for “end of the year”.