PDA

View Full Version : To Oleg: My idea to get loaded planes off the carriers.



BuzzU
12-30-2004, 12:10 AM
The way I understand it, when you adjusted the FM of the carrier planes it also affected the take off performance too. This has made it difficult to get loaded planes off the CVE, and stationary carriers.

Some have suggested boost systems and catapults. A catapult would be realistic, but maybe beyond what the IL2 code can do. A boost system in the plane could work, but it wouldn't be realistic, and could possibly lead to some sort of cheating.

So what we're trying to do is get more air over the wings. You can do that with speed, or a better way. Wind! There is nothing unrealistic about wind. Even a stationary carrier could have a strong wind blowing down the deck.

Is there a way to let us assign wind when a mission is made? That would solve the take off problems without messing with the FM's of the planes.

What do you think?

BuzzU
12-30-2004, 12:10 AM
The way I understand it, when you adjusted the FM of the carrier planes it also affected the take off performance too. This has made it difficult to get loaded planes off the CVE, and stationary carriers.

Some have suggested boost systems and catapults. A catapult would be realistic, but maybe beyond what the IL2 code can do. A boost system in the plane could work, but it wouldn't be realistic, and could possibly lead to some sort of cheating.

So what we're trying to do is get more air over the wings. You can do that with speed, or a better way. Wind! There is nothing unrealistic about wind. Even a stationary carrier could have a strong wind blowing down the deck.

Is there a way to let us assign wind when a mission is made? That would solve the take off problems without messing with the FM's of the planes.

What do you think?

Von_Zero
12-30-2004, 01:19 AM
Quite a good ideea, if the code can handle it, adjustable direction and power of the wind would not only be usefull for carrier ops, but also in general mission building.

Hetzer_II
12-30-2004, 01:27 AM
Than we have strong winds with static clouds....

TangmerePhilipp
12-30-2004, 03:00 AM
The basics of wind control settings (direction and speed) are absolutely ESSENTIAL to any serious flight sim.

PF is no different, especially when you are dealing with naval aviation. Remember, weather is a HUGE contributor for naval tactical movement.

JG53Frankyboy
12-30-2004, 03:02 AM
why so difficult ?
"just" ad always wind over the flightdeck of a carrier. so the wind would be "part" of the carrier modell and would come always from ahead.

joeap
12-30-2004, 05:38 AM
Good idea I'm for that. No need to unrealistically change FMs.

LLv26_Morko
12-30-2004, 05:44 AM
I agree!! wind would be good solution to the problem!

Willey
12-30-2004, 09:16 AM
That would also be my idea. Just have a wind zone in a 1km radius from the static carrier in DF maps. Strongest in the center, marginal at the border, getting stronger as you close in. You don't want to have an insta-kick 30kn wind on finals.

Latico
12-30-2004, 10:59 AM
One thing to keep in mind about the role of the CVE's. Their mode of operations was primarily to provide CAP and anti-sub patrol for the main fleets that they were assigned to. This meant that the aircraft did not fly far distances like the larger CV air groups had to do. A full fuel load was not needed, thereby making it easier to launch from the CVE.

When the role of a CVE did change to area patrols as they did in the Philipines they still had shorter distances to fly to strike a target.

TX-Zen
12-30-2004, 04:06 PM
I don't see why it would be unreasonable to hard code in some kind of free wind setting for the carriers themselves, basically a 15-30-45km/h force to help allow planes to take off with normal loadouts.

If the game engine can allow such modifications, it would certainly be more realistic than our current situation, which is rather less than believable imho. Seems you have to game the game a bit too much to takeoff with anything other than 25% fuel for many planes.

shieldsyy
12-30-2004, 04:41 PM
The idea has a lot of merit.
Perhaps headwind could be toggled on and off
in "Difficulty" settings.
There <span class="ev_code_RED">IS</span> a way! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Keep the faith!

stelr
12-30-2004, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
One thing to keep in mind about the role of the CVE's. Their mode of operations was primarily to provide CAP and anti-sub patrol for the main fleets that they were assigned to. This meant that the aircraft did not fly far distances like the larger CV air groups had to do. A full fuel load was not needed, thereby making it easier to launch from the CVE.

When the role of a CVE did change to area patrols as they did in the Philipines they still had shorter distances to fly to strike a target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with your assumption that CAP missions only require min fuel. Maybe only in a game like this, where no one is going to bore holes in the sky for 3-5 hours on a single mission. IRL CAPs had to stay aloft as long as possible, hence, 100% fuel in most cases.

shieldsyy
12-30-2004, 08:16 PM
CVE's normally used their <span class="ev_code_RED">catapults</span> ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

But, since we're talking about wind, wouldn't it be great to have adjustable headwind.

TheGozr
12-30-2004, 11:04 PM
The solution is to destroy your own Carrier that way you will be able to spawn mid air Engine ON at good speed full load.

is that a great solution or what http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ... because atually it's the way it is.

GreyBeast
01-01-2005, 05:10 PM
BUMP

AtorianPaladin
01-01-2005, 09:09 PM
OK, US and Japanese carriers did not have steam catapults. The british invented the Steam Catapult for carrier use after Korea. Float planes assigned to battleships/cruisers were fired off a steam catapult, but not nearly as powerful as todays.

The wind idea sounds pretty good.

Tater-SW-
01-01-2005, 11:02 PM
A CAP would always try to TO with as much fuel as possible, even on a CVE. RL CV ops in WW2 required spotting and respotting the planes to facilitate TO and landing ops, not to mention possible steaming in a direction you don;t want to go to get more wind over the bow. This meant that you could never count on being able to pancake whenever you needed to---more gas is always a good thing. Without wind, the simple solution is to at least allow the CVs to sail faster than RL during flight ops.

tater

starfighter1
01-04-2005, 09:32 AM
hi,
any facts and figures arround here or in game-information about the
lengh of runway on WW-II carriers and the
Lift Off Speed or Minimum Control Speed of different fighters and weapon weighs outloads ?

Does the game engine FM including the carriers and wind speed (example 5 kts brings 10% of low runway start) influence on start up ?
Same to hydrostatic simulation and influience on runway speed and length.

I guess the developer knows more about his codet program.
Let's ask him about the facts and figures
and if the running FM-gameengine can handle all this parameters ?

WWMaxGunz
01-04-2005, 01:01 PM
Ability of wind has been there since the start of IL2, even in demo I think.
I don't know if the sim wind has layers possible as real weather does but it can do wind.
Maybe a way to set wind and the stationary carriers automatic point into it?

Buzz... the boost for launch I suggested is 1 time short (only while on deck timed) and
trigger by the chocks moved away, a one time thing. No way to use that elsewhere if the
chocks have to be in place to make it work.
It still does nothing for landings though, which a strong headwind will. But landing
like that on a non-moving deck ... well DF's aren't very real anyway.

Athosd
01-05-2005, 06:39 PM
I should have come here first rather than start another thread on the subject in the PF room - oh well.

Anyway, one of the things that came up in that thread was the already implemented 'bad weather cross wind'. Given the effect is already present in the game perhaps it wouldn't be a mammoth task to change its effect by 90 degrees (always seems to blow from left to right) and make it a headwind for carrier ops.

Salute

Athos

VMF513_Whitey1
01-06-2005, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> OK, US and Japanese carriers did not have steam catapults <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your right, they were hydraulic catapults and they were used esp on CVE's

AlmightyTallest
01-06-2005, 10:54 PM
Don't forget Essex Class Catapults. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.steelnavy.com/essex_data.htm

From Above site:

Catapults (Deck): 1 H4B (2 H4B's in later ships)

Billy_BigBoy
01-07-2005, 02:54 AM
Stong wind over the deck, it's done before in Lock On.
The wind was strong enough for a VTOL.

joeap
01-07-2005, 03:02 AM
Look at this clip:

cool clip (http://pauke.ee.ethz.ch:8732/oberstguncam/Frameset/RealDocumentaries6.htm)

We need wind.

Recon_609IAP
01-07-2005, 07:43 PM
Wouldn't that make it harder to land? Start to touch down and you get blown back up like a fan? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sailor_Br
01-09-2005, 02:41 PM
BUMP !!!!


Brazil Salutt !