Fingers crossed they choose this route or something like it 
That carrier better do something ridiculously better than the free one. I don’t mind paying for modules, even maps. But for AI objects, I’m out. Really liked how razbam approaches it. The Harrier is the most expensive module, but the assets were free to all.
2 Likes
Yeah, it’s going to be really interesting - like @Bogusheadbox said, a lot of it will depend on the actual features of the paid DLC. Speculation fills a void, so I’m guessing better textures, a lift, better marshaling but then I don’t have to code it.
For the WWII asset pack, I see the analogy being more like ‘Frog, come play our Normandy landing mission’ and then me saying ‘Argh, can’t connect - I don’t own the WWII asset pack, I am now on hunger strike, this is so unfair!’, with the general response being ‘Frog, I am so sorry about your personality, but you are an idiot’. If it’s just a couple of jeeps etc in a modern mission then eventually I’d like the ‘low def’ version way, but it isn’t like the entire mission focus is about those time period assets, so kind of tough luck for now. No biggie.
For Carrier specific missions I reckon a lot of us will want to own the Carrier for the new toys.
1 Like
That’s going to depend on how accurately they choose to model carrier operations. It’s very, very rare to have jets taxi in the hangar deck because of all the FOD (Foreign Object Damage) and blast concerns when there’s maintenance going on down there.
Plus, if they’re going to have static low - LOD models available to simulate a full air wing, you’ll be surprised how crowded it gets in there very quickly in real life.
Finally, there’s a restriction of 10-12 knots for ship’s speed when operating the flight deck aircraft elevators (If I remember right - it’s been 11 years). This may not seem like a big deal, but for flight ops, you’re typically doing 15-20 knots, if not more, depending on existing wind conditions. This means you’re looking at a lot of necessary AI coding for all this to play nicely now.
4 Likes
Finally.
No really, those were doing way more harm than good since they never were even remotely close.
As for the rest:
A bit torn about the carrier. I will gladly pay quite some money (100 bucks) if we get features for it. I am talking about a properly working LSO including judging the player (like vLSO for FSX), the ability to spawn/despawn planes at more than one location, and other more advanced stuff that enhances gameplay. For example AI. That carrier has to turn into the wind when launching or recovering aircraft. Such stuff.
If it is just graphics: nope.
In any case it is necessary that the carrier is implemented in the sim well. I am curious how they will do it but frankly… I kinda expect it will become practically mandatory for people flying online since mission builders will place that cooler carrier and the mission will require the module.
But that’s just speculation.
As for the Hornet features: If most of the systems are in I don’t care if there are no weapons at all on release. Learning to fly before learning to fight. I can probably spend months with it before doing the first carrier landing or shoot the first weapons.
The Hornet is going to be my next 99% module like the A-10C is now. I have time but I want it to be done right.
I am pretty happy with that info.
1 Like
I would absolutely love a ranking system or at least point system that judged approaches and gave you a rating. That would add a bit of a permanency to your “naval career”…and make it so that you a stake in each approach.
3 Likes
FSX vLso is an asshole and my greatest aviation nemesis
3 Likes
I’m torn on this.
While I applaud the idea of a lower-def carrier for free, I’m puzzled about a paid carrier. You don’t want to sail it like you might a destroyer, it’s like driving a cruise ship that launches airplanes. I controlled one in BF1942, admittedly a low fidelity thing, and it was DULL.
This is pretty much the MSFS model of paying for an airport. In this case, the airport can move and has self defense systems, but it’s still paying for an airport. Now I understand paying for terrains which include airports, but I would never buy ONE airport.
Some have floated the idea that the paid carrier might have more systems, but that would also break MP. If the standard free one works like the Kuz and just looks like a Nimitz, how can they possibly be working the pattern at the same time as someone who paid for it and is doing the full LSO thing?
Huh? Sorry I cannot tell if you are serious or not… I used it with the Dino Cattaneo T-45 (IIRC) and the VRS Superbug and kinda liked it. Got good grades most of the time after getting used to it.
What was the problem?
If they simulate tie downs and provide at least a halfway decent model of the hull, propulsion plants, and steering, it could be a good bit of fun. Something that big running flat out and throwing the rudder full over each way… It’s enough to keep old fighter pilots entertained, anyway.
I’m wondering if the paid version would include more flexibility from a Combined Arms point of view - move planes around the deck, build, launch, and control AI strike or CAP packages, etc. Maybe even acting as a CVBG Commander with regards to controlling your CG and the DDG’s we do desperately need in game. If that’s the case representations of the CDC, CVIC, and CATTC would be very useful and would help with immersion.
1 Like
Jedi, I think the point again is that F18 will be sold as ‘one package’ with the carrier.
So anyone who wants to participate in MP carrier ops will buy the package.
But there will be still option for anyone to buy just the F18 first and then later, or never, the carrier.
This was the same with Normandy map and WWII asset pack.
1 Like
We wouldn’t keep a «Mudspike third wire» ladder, for all to see, would we…? 
2 Likes
Oh, we’d definitely need a Greenie Board added, maybe to the front page?
2 Likes
I thought The Hornet was going to be bundled with SoH Map???/ Wasn’t that the plan and reason for The Map??
If The DCS Carrier comes with a Flyable SH-60 SeaHawk to do SAR missions and fish all you "Wire missing Ensigns"™ out of The Drink???/ Then I’m all in for this "Pay to Play "entertainment!!! 
Tongue…Cheek[y]
2 Likes
…and another reason why we need DDG’s in the game.
1 Like
These run over the nugget. Seahawk ftw.
A bit of both, but more serious than not. I’ll admit I wasn’t that great at carrier landings last time I used it, but my experience was an unconstructive one. I’d roll onto final, I’d be told to call the ball, and then quickly told to wave off without any coaching or correction. Checking the app would show I’d slid into some red zone that the LSO failed to warn me about.
I found the entire thing frustrating: If I wanted to listen to a disembodied voice tell me to ■■■■ off every few minutes without context, I’d start listening to my internal monologue again.
2 Likes
Except for those nights or terrible days when it’s too stormy for the helos to fly. Then we’d have a Burke hanging out directly astern. Lots of fun to wave to those guys from the fantail.
1 Like
Destroyers in close proximity you say? Sounds like we need HMAS Melbourne.
Keyword: behind.
1 Like