PDA

View Full Version : Catapults for PF



shieldsyy
12-27-2004, 07:59 PM
The inability of the post patch Hellcat to takeoff from a static carrier brought back memories:
In CFS2 it was nearly impossible to get a bombed up Avenger off the deck.
I developed a simple solution to simulate a catapult launch called Wepcat. I just enabled WEP (War Emergency Power) in the Avenger airfile and bumped the boost to 100-150%. Get all set on the deck, rev to full power, release the brakes, and hit the "W" key. Zoom, you're in the air and away. Once you were airborne, you shut off the WEP (after about 250kts, it didn't really do much more anyway). Had hours of fun flying missions off of escort carriers, etc.
My point is, wouldn't it be possible to make something like Wepcat boost an option that you could assign a key too?

shieldsyy
12-27-2004, 07:59 PM
The inability of the post patch Hellcat to takeoff from a static carrier brought back memories:
In CFS2 it was nearly impossible to get a bombed up Avenger off the deck.
I developed a simple solution to simulate a catapult launch called Wepcat. I just enabled WEP (War Emergency Power) in the Avenger airfile and bumped the boost to 100-150%. Get all set on the deck, rev to full power, release the brakes, and hit the "W" key. Zoom, you're in the air and away. Once you were airborne, you shut off the WEP (after about 250kts, it didn't really do much more anyway). Had hours of fun flying missions off of escort carriers, etc.
My point is, wouldn't it be possible to make something like Wepcat boost an option that you could assign a key too?

J_Weaver
12-27-2004, 09:02 PM
No I don't thnk so. This would mean editing the flight models and we don't have to ability to do that. As I see it increasing the power of wep would fubar too many things to mention http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

shieldsyy
12-27-2004, 10:31 PM
I realize that we aren't able to do this. I was thinking that Oleg and company might consider adding it to a future patch.
WEP is just an example of a method that might be used. Perhaps the option might use an entirely different method that didn't effect the flight model. Folding wings, opening canopies and crewmen bailing out all have key commands. Why not catapults?
I know it could be done. It's all just code after all....

WWMaxGunz
12-27-2004, 10:38 PM
A very short lived boost triggered by checks away would work. And not 250mph!

Edit: errrr, make that CHOCKS AWAY
------ sorry, that a Freudian slip or does that have to have sex in it?

J_Weaver
12-27-2004, 10:42 PM
Shield,
Yea, I always wondered that too. I read a while back that catapults couldn't be done, if this is true or not I don't know. I remember playing ATF Gold years ago. All you had to do once on the catapult was run the engine up to max power then it automaticly launched you. It just seems that if it could be done years ago they could be do now. But I really don't know much about programing and such.

shieldsyy
12-27-2004, 10:51 PM
WWMaxguns,
I like it! That's the spirit!!

J_Weaver
I remember catapulting in Fighter's Anthology.
Years ago...

p1ngu666
12-27-2004, 11:12 PM
some planes run out of boost erm mw50/water.
so u could add some redicously potent boost that is only enuff to use once.

problem is howto limit its use to just the catapult

shieldsyy
12-27-2004, 11:51 PM
Good point. Perhaps it could be limited to planes on the ground...like wheel chocks.

oldschool1992
12-28-2004, 03:31 PM
why not just have the carriers move in an elongated race track type circle at 35 or 45 knots to provide the extra lift

or have wind at the appropriate speed into the carrier

shieldsyy
12-28-2004, 04:36 PM
I think I'd rather have catapults.

Catapults were an integral part of US and British carrier ops.

Why can't we have them?

t0n.
12-29-2004, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why can't we have them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because this engine wasn't orignally designed with carrier ops in mind. I assume that to go back and add that kind of functionality would require such a massive rework of the game code that its not financially feasable for them to go that route.

Personally, I think the carriers are getting pretty close to being so useless that there's no point in having them at all anyway. I'd trade the lot of them for a decent series of Solomon and New Guinea maps.

shieldsyy
12-29-2004, 05:06 PM
tOn.,
I agree that adding a catapult to each carrier would be too complicated.
On the other hand, I think it would be fairly simple to add a key activated takeoff boost, equivalent to a cat launch, to the naval aircraft. It'll work.
Don't give up on the carriers. Think how great it would be to launch an aircraft loaded down with bombs, rockets and gas tanks. The way they actually were. It would ADD accuracy to the sim!

_VR_ScorpionWorm
12-29-2004, 10:40 PM
AND it would be pointless and pull resources off other IMPORTANT things regarding gameplay and future development. It wont happen with PF, maybe if we get carriers in an expansion for BoB, it might be.

shieldsyy
12-29-2004, 11:14 PM
That's your opinion.
This is a Pacific based sim. What is more important than carrier ops?
Oh boy, a BOB patch with carriers!
Now there's a pointless waste.

_VR_ScorpionWorm
12-29-2004, 11:27 PM
No, this is an Pacific Theatre addition based off an eastern front sim, thats why catapults are not modelled, its posted above, too many complications having to rework the FM. 1C is not Microsoft, they dont have busloads of developers working for them. Now for MY opinion I would rather have them working on BUGS than trying to figure a catapult system. Only carrier I see in game is the HMS Illustrious with a catapult system, once again, pointless.

shieldsyy
12-29-2004, 11:33 PM
The only carrier with a cat is Illustrious...
Good night.

_VR_ScorpionWorm
12-29-2004, 11:40 PM
Oh, past your bed time? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif