Sorry but that’s not true. The Mi-8 is perfectly capable for landing on a ship and used for that. Same goes for the Huey and Gazelle. All of them have AFMs.
@others
I am not expecting any changes to be quick (hype be damned I was never easily excited and certainly won’t start because of any DCSW module) but if something is important to them they will have a hard time explaining to me why there wasn’t time to fix it in more than six years (ATC was broken since day one of DCSW and before that).
Also to those expecting a carrier to come with the Hornet: I am 90% sure Wags hinted that there will not be a carrier on Hornet release. In some live stream or so. I dont care. Plenty to do without a carrier.
I am a big fan of DCSW and follow it very closely, and that’s why those long standing issues bother me. Any time under a year is something I consider fast enough, but at some point things are starting to get ridiculous.
I’ve seen that. Looks pretty sweet. It also appears the ship is not moving. And I have not personally tested it, but I’m pretty sure the modules don’t slide on a still ship. There was a similar coding issue initially with some arma 3 carrier/ship mods that acted screwy while underway. Hence why the jets dlc is basically a reskinned parking lot.
Capable does not mean that shipboard operations are their primary environment. 99% of the time those helicopters are going to be operating from land bases or FARPs. Likewise there is at the moment, no PFM aircraft that can land or take off from a ship. I can easily see how ED has not deemed this a priority up until now.
There are only so many hours in the day, and ATC is clearly considered a low priority by ED. Same reason PFM aircraft slide on ships. Same reason the missiles have parachutes attached. Just because the ATC is important to you, doesn’t mean that the business weights it with the same importance.
There’s still a carrier in game, if the wires and catapults work, it’s good enough for the time being.
Well, they did say they want to improve ATC. They said they are working on it to have it ready for Nevada. That was a year before the planned release of Nevada, in 2014 or so.
And ATC is by far not the only one. But it seems whatever doesn’t contribute to making pretty screenshots without weather and at daytime isn’t priority. Fair enough. They just should say so.
Leaving intentions aside, as discussing those i find incredibly pointless, there’s 2 things that i have to of agree on with Aginor.
One is that in the last few years, comparatively little ground has been covered on features that enhance gameplay (as compared to stuff that falls mostly in the visual category). There are a multitude of long standing issues like the already mentioned AI, ATC and weather, there’s also the proper simulation of IR vision, missile and PGM flight models, missile guidance algorithms, then there’s the multiplayerwise catastrophic requirement for a GPU on MP hosts, server admins have to own 2 licenses of the game if they don’t want to host with their gaming machine which i also find problematic, even more so as hosting is expensive given the aforementioned hardware requirement, and i could go on with this but i think you get the point.
The second is PR, the way ED has handled feature announcements in the past IMHO has directly contributed to the disappointment/resignation that some people have in the community. I think that their current approach of being more uptight about upcoming stuff is a step in the right direction, however well organized PR and community management are still neglected posts for a company of EDs size.
That’s not to say that DCS is a bad product or that you’re not getting your money’s worth. I just hope that after the last few years initiative to bring DCS up to speed in the department of visuals (the results of which are IMHO outstanding), there will be an upcoming phase of pushing pending non-visual, directly gameplay related features that currently hold DCS back.
DCSW has some really awesome stuff that just blows every other sim out of the water, but it is lacking in other aspects.
I’d love to at least hear about something gameplay related now and then.
The only thing in that regard at the moment is WW2 bomber formations. Nice but that’s the only one.
I think that is what is so exciting (among many reasons!) about the impending releases of Harrier, F-18, and F-14. These are three aircraft modules that are forcing all the devs involved to develop new game play systems that were not in the sim before. RIO for the F-14, VTOL for the Harrier, carrier ops and ground radar for the F-18 and so on. They literally can’t develop these aircraft without developing these technologies.
You can say a lot of things about them, and you may not be happy about the time scales involved, but you have to admit they are choosing top level goals that force them to innovate.
I think we all can agree that DCS is a huge undertaking.
Yes, there are features lacking, and wanting. There are bugs. We’re all waiting for something.
The last few years of development has been about a lot more than visuals though. Moving up to DX11 sure is a lot about visuals, as we’ve seen. But it’s also about future proofing.
DCS is one d…arn impressive project, and I just love it, warts and all.
However, we’re getting off topic.
How 'bout that Harrier, huh? It can take off vertically…!
Unnatural, I say! Unnatural…
I just tested landing a KA-50 on a static carrier in 1.5 ob. It does not slide. Park one on a moving carrier and it moves, eventually breaking it self… And comparing two unrelated games would be pointless, but considering both games simulate flight, i think that would qualify a comparison. It really comes down to how the ships are modeled. It has to do with the texture/properties of the deck. The designers have to figure out how to achieve the “concrete” properties of a runway, but have it move as well. This issue is apparent in RAZBAM’s video. The harrier is basically floating on the deck, not sliding. If it was actually sliding, you would see skid marks like when I tokyo drift the P51 on landing.
Might be cool to just wait and see what ED comes up with. I gather they are quite aware of what parameters that need to be in place to provide a credible and authentic carrier experience.
@BeachAV8R The point was that apparently Heatblur has fixed this, thus putting it on the individual developers to model ships that correct it. In which case we will be waiting until ED unveils its new carrier.
Well in 1.5, the ships do not rock and roll like that when stationary, and since I’ve refused to buy normandy, no ships in 2.1 for me. If you put a stationary carrier down in 1.5 they stick like the AI does.
I just hope it doesn’t look like this at release. Check out this ultra scientific video I made on the current state of carrier physics.
That was shot in 1.5, bout 200 miles west of Sukhumi. Crank the wind up, it effects the amount to which the ships rock. The only difference is in 2.1 the water’s prettier.
I think anything is speculation and I’m content to wait and see. Again, nobody is bringing up anything that ED doesn’t already know about…and I’m sure they would like to fix everything…but who knows.
I’m sure it will definitely will not look like that. Also worth mentioning, it’s an AI controlled aircraft which can’t be compared to a player controlled aircraft. But you don’t really need to compare landing physics on carriers at all yet because they’ll get a complete overhaul once all that naval stuff comes out. I guess at least.
