Angle Deck Essex

[navychief8]

Calling in a request to all the amazing aircraft and ship developers out there. Is there anyone willing to make angle deck Essex for FSX that would be able to be used with the AIcarrier2 program. What a beautiful home for A-4s, F-4s,F-8s, C-1s, and SH-3s. This is a ship that is long over due and deserves a place in FSX Naval Aviation. So lets stir up some interest and maybe one of these guys will surprise us. :woot::woot::woot:

ATC(AW/SW) Schaefer, USN

[Navy Chief]

Calling in a request to all the amazing aircraft and ship developers out there. Is there anyone willing to make angle deck Essex for FSX that would be able to be used with the AIcarrier2 program. What a beautiful home for A-4s, F-4s,F-8s, C-1s, and SH-3s. This is a ship that is long over due and deserves a place in FSX Naval Aviation. So lets stir up some interest and maybe one of these guys will surprise us. :woot::woot::woot:

ATC(AW/SW) Schaefer, USN


Well ahoy there, shipmate!!

I echo your interest!:applause:

NC (AMEC(AW), ret)

[langshan]

This is becoming a wee bit of the CPO mess here. AHOY!! Nice suggestion. =S=


Retired RMCM(ITCM)
1974-2004.

[PRB]

Yeah, where's Willy? Lets go get some coffee!

NC8, I too would welcome an "SCB-27" Essex! Helldiver, however, will not be impressed! :d

ATC(AW) 1980 - 1994

[BOOM]

Do you mean.........something like this???????????????
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/img54.jpg

[navychief8]

I think that flight sim not only provides great entertainment, but it is also a great way to preserve the history that these great Ships and Aircraft wrote. I am involved in a project to bring the USS Macon ZRS-5 to FSX and bring a forgotten era of Naval Aviation back to life. This game is a great way to show young kids the history of aviation in some other form than looking at a picture in a book. Well I will get off my soapbox now and get back to flying.

[PutPut]

I think that flight sim not only provides great entertainment, but it is also a great way to preserve the history that these great Ships and Aircraft wrote. I am involved in a project to bring the USS Macon ZRS-5 to FSX and bring a forgotten era of Naval Aviation back to life. This game is a great way to show young kids the history of aviation in some other form than looking at a picture in a book. Well I will get off my soapbox now and get back to flying.

Do you have a status report on the Macon? Is this the same as the Akron project of a few months ago. I ask because I recently released a model of the F9C Sparrowhawk which I have successfully docked with a simple static airship the size of the Akron. It appears it "might" be possible to dock with an AI version which I haven't completely tested yet.

Paul

[crashaz]

Paul you are amazing! Your releases are nonstop! :woot:
I'm jealous!



Some of us have various completion stages of the angle deck carriers. I have two sitting in the shipyard.

Coral Sea
and
- enter your favorite SCB-27 here -
<ENTER here SCB-27 favorite your>

Real life is just kicking me in the pants right now and I apologize for that... with the economy the way it is I make sure I stay busy.. I have employees to feed.

[michael davies]

Both Crashaz and myself are trying to pick off the Essex models, though there terribly complex so take a little time and real life has its pressures right now.

large picture of attached thumb is here........... http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/CV38%20Shangri%20La_06%20modified.jpg .........its a Max8 render and WIP.

Kindest

Michael

[Helldiver]

Since I was only a AMM3/C, I would like to offer up my opinion.
Why anyone that would take a sleek, beautiful Essex Class Carrier and turn into one of these lop-sided, ungainly looking, angled deck abortions is a mystery to me.
Just a look at Mike Davies screen shot would tell you that. Leave perfection alone. God, you'd put a mustache on the Mona Lisa!
Boom, I don't know where you got that picture but I been telling everyone that a Carrier is a planing hull, As such it goes at flank speed with the wind behind it and then turns 180 degrees to head into the wind. When it does. it heels way over and you make sure that the planes are well guyed down. It's hard to stay up right and make sure you don't fall off. One of the fun things about being on a Carrier. That and dodging props.

[sparouty]

Hello!
Helldiver your post remind me a discussion I had with a friend of mine who had land Corsair on wooden deck few years before...
I wondered which version of L'Arromanches (ex HMS Colosus) I should build.
In her last years, Arromanches was added a small angle deck for carrier landing qualifications.

The conclusion we met was that, for some people, angle deck and island are nicely balancing each other, and for others, the hull line, or silhouette, must not be disrupted by this ugly "angle"...

The very last conclusion was : I have to build both :confused:

And by the way Good luck Michael and Crashaz!!
Sylvain

[Bjoern]

What a beautiful home for A-4s, F-4s,F-8s, C-1s, and SH-3s.

Didn't F-4s only appear on Forrestals (and larger), because they were too big and heavy for the older carriers?

[expat]

Michael,

That is the most awesome looking ship model I have ever seen for any version of FS.
:jawdrop:

Will be worth the wait!

Expat

[Snuffy]

Do you mean.........something like this???????????????
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/badaboom/img54.jpg

I get it !!! :engel016:

[fliger747]

Yup, the Independence CVL's were rollers! Just now reading a book about the Bunker Hill which I had a chance to go aboard when she was still in the mothball fleet in the mids 60's. Wasn't too much longer before she was towed away for razorblades.

Cheers: T.

[michael davies]

Didn't F-4s only appear on Forrestals (and larger), because they were too big and heavy for the older carriers?

Not quite, the F-4s appeared on the rebuilt Midway class before the forrestals, but only after their decks had extra metal work to support the increased sink rate impact.

The biggest Essex's could support was the A-3, the biggest the Midway could support was the F-4 and the biggest the Forrestal could support was the F-4, A-5 and F-14s.

Physical size or speed ( note F-8s served on Essex classes) isnt the deciding factor, its the approach speed coupled with the appraoch weight and sink rate, the F-14 has the biggest impact but there was one larger and that was the F-111B, but not by much, sadly it was only a test and nothing ever came of it.

Best

Michael

[Odie]

Both Crashaz and myself are trying to pick off the Essex models, though there terribly complex so take a little time and real life has its pressures right now.

large picture of attached thumb is here........... http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/CV38%20Shangri%20La_06%20modified.jpg .........its a Max8 render and WIP.

Kindest

Michael

Michael, it'll be worth the wait !!! Looks great !

[michael davies]

Michael,

That is the most awesome looking ship model I have ever seen for any version of FS.
:jawdrop:

Will be worth the wait!

Expat

Thank you, but sadly there is one among us who may not be around by the time I finally pull my digit out and finish it....truth is the project is so massive I'll be updating and adding for ever, much like DCCs P-38 projects, each one better than the last one.

I am seriously considering an appeal to SoH users to help me at least get a beta package to said gentleman so that he may at least have some fun in his failing years, all be it a untextured beta model. I need time to think how best to do this and word the appeal and the ramifications of the proposal, which basically throws the current beat model into the public arena and may void previous payware agreements, the Beta has no acceleration features so would require these other freeware packages for cat and trap, neither of which I have time to learn on top of the rest of my schedule, plus other issues.

One good thing is that FSx is around for a while, that means no more moving goal posts in compilers and materials and other tedious requiems that developers have to jump through LOL.

Anyway, heres another render, I'm still not happy with the high angle views with respect to lighting values or scene ambiance, the low level ones are ok now, but up high they loose something, big image here......http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/CV10_01.jpg .... http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/CV10_02.jpg ....thumbs attached, this is the short hull version, I do have another render of the Port side going through right now, should be done in a few hours, I'll post that up as a taster.

Kindest

Michael

[Snuffy]

That looks marvelous Michael.

[crashaz]

Thank you, but sadly there is one among us who may not be around by the time I finally pull my digit out and finish it....truth is the project is so massive I'll be updating and adding for ever, much like DCCs P-38 projects, each one better than the last one.

I am seriously considering an appeal to SoH users to help me at least get a beta package to said gentleman so that he may at least have some fun in his failing years, all be it a untextured beta model. I need time to think how best to do this and word the appeal and the ramifications of the proposal, which basically throws the current beat model into the public arena and may void previous payware agreements, the Beta has no acceleration features so would require these other freeware packages for cat and trap, neither of which I have time to learn on top of the rest of my schedule, plus other issues.

One good thing is that FSx is around for a while, that means no more moving goal posts in compilers and materials and other tedious requiems that developers have to jump through LOL.

Anyway, heres another render, I'm still not happy with the high angle views with respect to lighting values or scene ambiance, the low level ones are ok now, but up high they loose something, big image here......http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/CV10_01.jpg ....thumb attached, this is the short hull version, I do have another render of the Port side going through right now, should be done in a few hours, I'll post that up as a taster.

Kindest

Michael

If there is a question of voiding previous payware agreements, I can help you turn wrenches. We can use my virtual shipyard workers to give you a hand. This way you can still get the ship done faster for your friend... and you don't have to make the ship available to a bunch of people.


With the acceleration features I can help you get setup. I would prefer we get a real nice artist though. I'm good... but this one deserves the best!

Just have the people who work with you sign an NDA and this protects your work from those not working on the project specifically.

Maybe we can setup another time to talk via Skype... much faster way of working together. :wavey:

[michael davies]

If there is a question of voiding previous payware agreements, I can help you turn wrenches. We can use my virtual shipyard workers to give you a hand. This way you can still get the ship done faster for your friend... and you don't have to make the ship available to a bunch of people.


With the acceleration features I can help you get setup. I would prefer we get a real nice artist though. I'm good... but this one deserves the best!

Just have the people who work with you sign an NDA and this protects your work from those not working on the project specifically.

Maybe we can setup another time to talk via Skype... much faster way of working together. :wavey:

Colin,

Initially I just want it as a moving carrier you can land on in FSx, I already can do this and sent the files, I've sent them to others and they have it installed and landable.

What I need initially is a simple clickable exe that installs it and sets a flight up or what ever one needs, so the guy can find it, no files here, files there, cut this paste that crap, one click and go, I'm prepared to send what ever I have now to achieve that one singular aim.

Just that alone will be a massive boost to the guys enjoyment in FSx, once that is established I can work on the rest.

Basically I need a moving carrier on a track with a schedule that the guy can use and work easily, many of us here have time and patience to work through any issues and get an end result, I want and need something packaged that is water tight that for example my twelve yr old could install and work, I dont have the experiance, skills or time to explore / learn whats needed to do this.

I've seen others post paths and moving ships and this and that, which tooke them mere moments to achieve, just getting mine to sail around North Wales took days to work out.

Regarding the rest of the model, I'll work on that in my own pace, your right texturing needs to be perfect and I'll work through that as and when, it will really benifit from baked textures with shadows and such, especially on things like masts, fittings and weapons, that will throw them into sharp 3D, painting is easy, its the mapping and variant mapping and the tight control on the draw calls and the amount of textures required thats the hard part.

For example, the Quad 40s need to be in a three or four colors, this depends on their location and the paint scheme, you cant just paint one quad 40 in grey and leave it there, simplest thing is to map one and clone with each paint scheme, problem is, that will make four or five distinct seperate textures where the only difference is the base color, it would be smarter to use one large 1024 with a Quad mapped four times on it, each quarter in a different color, easy enough but I'm only just scraping by mapping and baking one item per texture, cloning it and mapping four times on one texture has me lost at the moment. I know whats needed but not the skills to achieve it, or to be frank the stomach to learn long hard winded inner depths of Max to get the result.

Doing baked textures isnt so hard for say aircraft or even a landing gear, but a decent Quad 40 model is another story, then duplicate four times into one texture is another task, setting Max to simple bake is easy, but you end up with a mish mash of polys all over the place, you need to start grouping them into some sort of cohesive form so its not just a map of 450 seperate polys. Indeed some parts can be replicated in model form from one map, examples would be the seats, magazines, sights or barrels, you only need map and bake one, then clone across when done to replicate the duplicate parts.

Sound crazy ?, oh brother is it crazy, it takes me weeks to work out the best method LOL, true, I could just set Max to auto bake and map, but on the Essex you'd end up with nearly 100 textures, some from 128x128 others upto 2048x2048. Its not a problem if you just want to make one model, say USS Intrepid in 1944, but I dont, I want others, long hulls and short hulls, flag bridge modified or standard, all that has to be figured into the equation.

What I'm saying is, if I gave this to anyone else to paint or map they'd have a seizure LOL, I dont want simple grey bland textures for anything, it would be so easy to do that, I want a full 3D mapped and baked model, and that is going to take an inordinate amount of time and effort.

To summise, initially I want to get what I have right now into a simple one click package for one of our esteemed elderly SOH members to use, if FSx Accel cat and trap is easy to add I'll add that, if not then this other freeware stuff, threewire ?, sorry, really out of touch with all that stuff right now....( its a need to know basis and whilst attempting to map the model....I dont need to know LOL )....will need to be added.

If anyone can help then jump in, contact myself or Colin and help us make it happen, its not for me, its for someone else here who I think needs a leg up right now.

Kindest

Michael

Addendum, Colin, sorry, not saying no to any help, just babbling and trying to get something sorted in short time, re-assesing priorities and schedules.

[Helldiver]

Mike - As far as shadows are concerned it looks like your right on. Here's a picture of the USS Leyte and your ship and they look almost identical.

[Ian Warren]

This model has the potential of no equal , it is brilliant ! , Mike , be it a work in progress , payware or ... the other , my wallet is open !

[fliger747]

Yes, a most important world addition for FSX, a classic in the making!

Regards: T.

[Bjoern]

Not quite, the F-4s appeared on the rebuilt Midway class before the forrestals, but only after their decks had extra metal work to support the increased sink rate impact.

Hm, but as far as I can remember I've never seen photos of F-4s on a Midway class carrier.

Feel free to prove me wrong. :)



The biggest Essex's could support was the A-3, the biggest the Midway could support was the F-4 and the biggest the Forrestal could support was the F-4, A-5 and F-14s.

Sure thing about the Forrestals, but A-3s on the Essex?

They were considerably larger and heavier than F-4s, so why were they put on a smaller carrier?

Because of...


Physical size or speed ( note F-8s served on Essex classes) isnt the deciding factor, its the approach speed coupled with the appraoch weight and sink rate, the F-14 has the biggest impact but there was one larger and that was the F-111B, but not by much, sadly it was only a test and nothing ever came of it.

...the approach speed and weights?

[SkippyBing]

Picture here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/USS_Midway%3B024105.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/USS_Midway%3B024105.jpg)of Phantoms on the USS Midway, it had Hornets for the first Gulf War.

[Helldiver]

The Midway was the Midway class Carrier, not the Essex class

[Helldiver]

The worst airplane that the Navy had as far as speed plus weight was the North American RA-5C Vigilante.

[Ian Warren]

Tell one thing HD , there is no way i'm going to try and land - a simply prity aeroplane on a though deck Essex class carrier without someone handing me coffee every 100 meters , :faint:

[Bjoern]

Picture here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/USS_Midway%3B024105.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/USS_Midway%3B024105.jpg)of Phantoms on the USS Midway, it had Hornets for the first Gulf War.

So it *is* true...


Merci beaucoup!

[michael davies]

Hm, but as far as I can remember I've never seen photos of F-4s on a Midway class carrier.

Feel free to prove me wrong. :)




Sure thing about the Forrestals, but A-3s on the Essex?

They were considerably larger and heavier than F-4s, so why were they put on a smaller carrier?

Because of...



...the approach speed and weights?

Here you go,

links to bigger images of forum thumbs

Some 'very' large images of F-4s on the Midway class

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/DN-SN-84-02495.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/DN-SN-84-03467.jpg

second one shows damge from the Frigate collision she had, I think it was the Kennedy ?, will need to dig around to be sure, I think it was after this accident that a seperate mast was added in front of the bridge structure by Cat1 JBD on all carriers, often nick nammed the Kennedy pole. The collision occured at night and the cause was sited as the Frigate was unsure which direction the carrier was going under minimal lighting conditions.

Heres some A-3s on Essex carriers

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/cv-31-h97344.jpg

You can just see it sat behind the bridge, they were always parked here because they could not be struck under as far as I know.

Another view

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/kn05442.jpg

And a bigger view

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/023116.jpg

Best

Michael

[Warrant]

What a great thread! :applause: (great historical imagery)

Great work on the carrier!

Perhaps worth a sticky

:friday:

[Helldiver]

I can remember saying, on seeing a shot of the island on Mike's carrier, that it brought me back to over 64 years ago to the real thing, it was so very real. Everything was in it's place. I don't know how he does it.

[Ian Warren]

There we go , Douglas A3 Skyworriers:kilroy: , saves me digging pics up , the Midway class , CVA41-42-43 , I must get over to San Diego , the Midway being the most modified carrier till its retirement , oh no not another scale model :woot:

[michael davies]

I can remember saying, on seeing a shot of the island on Mike's carrier, that it brought me back to over 64 years ago to the real thing, it was so very real. Everything was in it's place. I don't know how he does it.

Its easy, no one told me it was this hard in the beginning LOL, plus I'm an obsessive for pictorial data, when you have fistfuls of pictures its hard not to get at least some of it right :).

Just a little update, I've resurrected all the files ( I'd forgotten that I'd forgotten so much ! ) and shuffled things around, the short hull model was woefully wrong in several areas so I took the time to sort a lot of that out today, along with the old style flag bridge and weaponry.

Thanks to some very insightful PM's I now have cat and trap programmed in, hopefully it will compile ok and I can do some sea trials tomorrow, then I'll still need to look into packaging it up for our 'friend'.

Some one else also asked for some 'WOW' renders for his site as they are running a WWII history learning thread through FS screen shots and such, you know who you are so feel free to grab the uncompressed renders from here

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/CV10_03.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/CV10_04.jpg

for your use, the rest y'all are free to look or use or simply look at the smaller thumbs below.

I have been questioned as to why the 'lower' parts of the carrier are so detailed, surely if your just landing and taking off you cant see underneath, technically this is true, but FSX allows drivable carriers and many camera angles, I'm not sure if you can drive a carrier in MP and watch others land, in which case cameras on the fan tail or catwalks will give a some nice angles, or vulture row if you wish.

One other aspect is that you could also be a plane guard, set the carrier as AI and let people land and trap, whilst you scoot around at sea level in your 1st person Destroyer, then camera views from that vessel would be looking up, in which case below deck details become very prevalent.

Whether any of this can actually be achieved I'm not sure, but reading posts around here it might all be possible, then again it might all be pie in the sky, a nice pie none the less :).

Kindest

Michael

[SkippyBing]

Slightly off topic but a contemporary of the Essex that I've been working on for a while. Not up to Michael's standards but I think I'd go mad putting in that much detail! Oh and my computer would grind to a halt, it's struggling with this in Max.

[michael davies]

Skippy,

That looks nice, always good to see some RN stuff kicking around, how many polys is it at the moment ?, the Essex models are only around 120-140,000 polys depending on long or short hull and weapons fit.

You might find Max works better if you choose the right display drivers, Max prefers Direct X, look under cutomize / preference settings then click the viewport tab, at the bottom make sure you have Direct X set, then you can configure the driver better.

Note, Max then will look at your desk top settings so if you have that set up for high AA or any other game smoothing settings, these will transpose to Max, for really big models I tend to drop my desk top settings down and that helps fluidity a lot in Max.

Hope that helps

Michael

[SkippyBing]

Michael,

Thanks, she' ~80,000 polys at the moment which leaves me a few thousand for deck crew and some detailing. I did scare myself at one point when I'd made overly detailed Pom-Pom guns and broke the FSX exporter! Fortunately I think this is the most complex version due to the Pom-Poms so the late and post war versions when they get done should have a little flex in the modelling.

I'll check my max settings, be nice to scroll around the model without having to take a break everytime I move it!

Skippy

[Helldiver]

By the way, in comparing the Leyte vs. Mikes presentation I noticed that the quad 40 sponsons were eliminated from the starboard side of the Leyte.
They were on it when I was aboard her so she apparently had them removed for the Korean conflict.
Small wonder, traditionally, gunners aboard a Carrier, inspite of having a more stable platform, could not hit a barn door.
In the mean time the Destroyers would hit anything that came into range. I believe that finally they even did way with the 5 inch turrets and emplacements too.

[Collin]

Michael, Skippy, about time you posted some piccies in the Naval forum so we can collectively go ..."ohh".."ahhh"...then scratch ya eyes out in a jealous rage.:applause:

regards Collin:ernae:

[SkippyBing]

There's a naval forum?!?!

[Bjoern]

[...]

Alright, point taken. :costumes:

Thanks for the images!

[michael davies]

Actually those three Quad tubs below the bridge structure threw me out for a good amount of time, I'd got images of three tubs in May 44, no tubs in Sep 44 and back to three again in Feb 45, the biggest problem was that the shots were quite low angles so you couldn't see the deck numbers or the catwalk layout to confirm it was the same vessel, many WWII images are wrongly labelled and some post war ones too, the biggest is an image supposedly of Forrestal but is actually Ranger.

Cross referencing the particular Essex radar fit was no use either as this changed almost monthly, the muddle was cleared up by a Essex historian on another site, the three starboard side tubs below the bridge were bolted on, to transit the Panama canal the tubs were take off and stowed aboard and then refitted on the other side in a quick yard fit before action, the dates just happened to coincide with an East coast yard refit for a Pacific based carrier.

There is only one certainty with Essex carriers and weapons / radar fit and even paint colors, almost anything is possible, thats the beauty of researching them :).

They were all removed post war anyway, all SCB 125 refits ( angled decks ) had the dual 5" mounts taken off, and some SCB 27 ( new bridge ) retained them, usually the helo carrier conversions, Valley Forge lost the two deck ones but retained the two mounted on pedestals, it all gets a bit messy with the SCB conversions and what went where and for how long, like WWII, fits and refits seemed to happen in very quick order.

Best

Michael


By the way, in comparing the Leyte vs. Mikes presentation I noticed that the quad 40 sponsons were eliminated from the starboard side of the Leyte.
They were on it when I was aboard her so she apparently had them removed for the Korean conflict.
Small wonder, traditionally, gunners aboard a Carrier, inspite of having a more stable platform, could not hit a barn door.
In the mean time the Destroyers would hit anything that came into range. I believe that finally they even did way with the 5 inch turrets and emplacements too.

[SkippyBing]

many WWII images are wrongly labelled and some post war ones too, the biggest is an image supposedly of Forrestal but is actually Ranger.

The worst I've seen is in the UK's Defence Recognition Journal. The naval recce test for the month was on carriers, basically 10 pictures of carriers plus the background image. The background image was allegedly a Nimitz class carrier. Strange how it say John F Kennedy across the stern.
It is truly a useless publication at times.

[michael davies]

Yup, thats quite a big blunder LOL.

Ok sea trials, well the wires work, not sure which one I'm catching but it does stop most of the time....given my ham fisted controlled crash landings, however the cat does not, the yellow box is a dummy block just to show me where the cat start is, the launch bar is down but no go, drive over it, back and forth and no cat shot, is there a key command ( cant find one yet ) or is it an automatic trigger ?.

Best

Michael

Addendum, Skippy just checked the Essex poly count, 173K at last compile....Ooouch, but it compiled, cant work out how you broke the compiler with all your Pom Poms ?, I've heard 250K is possible ?.


The worst I've seen is in the UK's Defence Recognition Journal. The naval recce test for the month was on carriers, basically 10 pictures of carriers plus the background image. The background image was allegedly a Nimitz class carrier. Strange how it say John F Kennedy across the stern.
It is truly a useless publication at times.

[PRB]

My favorite is when the show photos, or even film, of carriers in which the film has been put in backwards, so that the island is on the wrong side. I see that a lot in WW-II film and photos. I wonder how that happens so much.

[michael davies]

My favorite is when the show photos, or even film, of carriers in which the film has been put in backwards, so that the island is on the wrong side. I see that a lot in WW-II film and photos. I wonder how that happens so much.

Ahh, now if they are IJN carriers then it might be right :), there were some carriers built as sisters, one with a bridge on the port side and one with a bridge on the starboard side, the idea being to sail with the bridges next to each other for better communcations and concerted launch and recovery, each carrier circuit being 'outside' the two carriers in a double lobed sort of thing.

Best

Michael

[BASys]

Hi Folks


however the cat does not,
the yellow box is a dummy block just to show me where the cat start is,
the launch bar is down but no go,
drive over it, back and forth and no cat shot,
is there a key command ( cant find one yet )
or is it an automatic trigger ?
Michael -
Catapult launch requires multiple key inputs.

To launch from an aircraft carrier


Taxi the aircraft into position for assisted takeoff.
Note 1: The nose wheel of the aircraft must be inside one of the red/white stripe boxes around the catapult launch sled.
Press SHIFT+U to extend the launch bar.
Press SHIFT+I to enage the catapult (assisted takeoff).
Press F4 or push the joystick throttle forward to advance power to FULL.
With the engines at full takeoff power, press SHIFT+SPACEBAR to launch the catapult.
Note 2: The launch bar will retract automatically once the throttle is advanced past 80%
AND the aircraft releases from the catapult sled.

Ensure you're using an appropriately modified aircraft.cfg.

See links at FSDeveloper - Wiki - Catapult/Arrestor Operations (FSXA) (http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=Catapult/Arrestor_Operations_%28FSXA%29)


HTH
ATB
Paul

[sparouty]

Hello!
I had recently both of your problems : cat not working and FSX compiler issue...

For the catapult, I had to move my model reference point to make it working. I don't really understand why, but it worked...Is this catapult feature work only if for the FSX Carrier configuration??

For the FSX compiler issue, I had an error due to draw call limitation : 64k polys max per material. I was using my main texture for all railings, ladders, etc.. which made me "overflow" the draw call capacity for this texture.

I used Arno's DrawCallMonitor tool (from FSDeveloper.com) to check my drawcalls and fixed my problem...

Regards,
Sylvain

[michael davies]

Paul,

Thanks for that, problem is it still doesnt work, dont thinbk its the aircraft, more like my attach points, also I seem to have lost my labels like tail hook and brake etc, can anyone remember the cfg entry please, looked and clean forgotten which one I might have changed !.

Best

Michael


Hi Folks


Michael -
Catapult launch requires multiple key inputs.

To launch from an aircraft carrier


Taxi the aircraft into position for assisted takeoff.
Note 1: The nose wheel of the aircraft must be inside one of the red/white stripe boxes around the catapult launch sled.
Press SHIFT+U to extend the launch bar.
Press SHIFT+I to enage the catapult (assisted takeoff).
Press F4 or push the joystick throttle forward to advance power to FULL.
With the engines at full takeoff power, press SHIFT+SPACEBAR to launch the catapult.
Note 2: The launch bar will retract automatically once the throttle is advanced past 80%
AND the aircraft releases from the catapult sled.
Ensure you're using an appropriately modified aircraft.cfg.

See links at FSDeveloper - Wiki - Catapult/Arrestor Operations (FSXA) (http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=Catapult/Arrestor_Operations_%28FSXA%29)


HTH
ATB
Paul

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Michael -
You mentioned previously
that you think the arrestor wires are working.

Just in case they're not,
and you've been landing without.
i.e.
FSXAcceleration key mapping is not installed
Please see FSDeveloper - Wiki - Key Mapping (FSXA) (http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=Key_Mapping_%28FSXA%29)



Configuring Aircraft
You can add the required sections directly into your aircraft.cfg.

The aircraft.cfg entries will automatically override the equivalent entries in the model.

Example code is for Acceleration F/A18.



For launch assist, (Catapult)

[launch_assistance]
launch_bar_pivot = Launch bar pivot point relative to datum reference point.
launch_bar_lug = Launch bar lug point relative to datum reference point.


[launch_assistance]
launch_bar_pivot = 5.0, 0.0, -1.0
launch_bar_lug = 5.0, 0.0, -4.5


For Landing, (Arrestor Cables)

[tailhook]
tailhook_length = Length of tailhook in feet.
tailhook_position = Tailhook pivot point relative to datum reference point.


[tailhook]
tailhook_length = 4.5
tailhook_position = -49.0, 0, -2.5


HTH
ATB
Paul

[SkippyBing]

Michael, I think it was my over enthusiastic use of smoothing groups that caused the problem, basically the vertices on the edge of a smoothing group are counted twice, i.e. once for each group they're part of.

As a quick idiot check, have you got the start and end catapult attach points the right way round? I'm trying to think what problems I had getting it to work the first time, but they were all down to syntax problems in the user defined section of the object properties, e.g. attachpt_attachpt_catapult_start_1 etc. Took me a day to spot that one.
Might be worth double checking the T-45 on the default carrier to confirm that works properly, or use the F/A-18. I take it you've tried extending the launch bar and then taxiing slowly through the attach point area pressing Shift+I to try and get it to hook on?
I don't think the hierarchy of the attach points matters, although mine are all just attached to the deck.


Note 2: The launch bar will retract automatically once the throttle is advanced past 80%
AND the aircraft releases from the catapult sled.

I found it wanted to be in afterburner, which is +80% throttle but a problem for non-afterburning types, could just be me though!

[Helldiver]

I'll be darned, now that you mention it, the gun tubs were taken off when we went through the Canal They were taken off at Panama City with the on-board cranes. They must have been stored outboard though, I don't remember them on the hanger deck. I remember they took off the gas line that ran all most the length of the ship on the port side, but plumb forgot about the sponsons. We had, I believe, 18 inches clearance when we got everything cleaned off.
The memory is a sometimes thing. I wonder how these guys write what happened during WWII with an old memory. I wouldn't trust mine.

[Collin]

Gun tubs on the Illustrious class HMS Victorious had to be removed to transit the Panama Canal when she was loaned to the USN.

Basically the building of the Essex class was very dynamic in design as the war progressed, and combat experience feedback began to have its effect.
The later ones completed on the east coast (like Valley Forge) didn't feature the starboard gun tubs so that they could transit the Canal. Also the 20mm guns were drastically reduced as they were no longer any good except as a warning to those on the lower decks that the ship was under close attack.
The weight saved in guns and ammo was welcomed as these ships were now so top heavy that their torpedo resistance had now been reduced to one.
Habitability was also a severe problem with all the new equipment that had been added, air-conditioning was always a major headache and remained so for the rest of their working lives.

Michael, we had a thread on this a couple of years ago, not sure if it was lost to the digital ether during the last crash.

Skippy, Naval forum-
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/forumdisplay.php?f=25

regards Collin:ernae:

[michael davies]

Colin, yes the Essex suffered terribly with ventilation, so much so that after terrible fire fighting problems with smoke in accommodation areas that a new vent system was added to the Port side, later vessels and refitted vessels had new trunking added outboard, originally the duct ran right through the upper hanger bay and was susceptible to smoke infusion which was then pumped through out most of the vessel, modified vessels can be ascertained by the extra trunking on the port side, I think there was three ducts in all, but only two were easily visible, you can just see the extra trunking on Valley Forge aft of the Port deck elevator in the image below, it runs from the tween deck just below the flight deck ( 02 level ? ) to just below the hanger deck level.

Didn't see that thread, shame as you can often pick up snippets of info here and there, some good information can be gathered from plastic modellers sites dotted around.

20mm was basically a moral booster later in WWII, even the Quad 40s were not that effective toward dive bomber Kamikaze planes, the 5" dual mount had the punch but not the rate of fire, some Essex carriers had a few 20mm changed to twin 20mm ans some had Dual and Quad Army 50 cal mounts, plenty of fire power and punch, but a non standard fitting and thus fell foul of spares and ammo etc.

Bob noted that Escorts usually had better results, thats down to the directors, on the carriers it was one director per Quad or per pair of Quads, on escorts I think it was quite often one director to three or four Quads, a much more concentrated mass of fire power.

Best

Michael

[michael davies]

Skippy,

I think its going to be something simple, I'm fairly sure the aircraft is ok, only issue I have is that at full power its runnig through the hand brake, could this ( hand brake ) be holding off the cat ?, release it and press the right keys and nothing happens, like you say I need to check with a default carrier.

As for the Accell F-18, what a pig to fly and land, thats why I opted for the T-45, much more stable and docile, it traps ok and I've not seen any adverse reports about cats so assume its local.

Will recheck all tomorrow with a fresh mind.

Is there a default carrier in free flight you can check cats from ?, I've yet to find a carrier full stop in FSx, not looked that hard to be honest LOL.

Best

Michael


Michael, I think it was my over enthusiastic use of smoothing groups that caused the problem, basically the vertices on the edge of a smoothing group are counted twice, i.e. once for each group they're part of.

As a quick idiot check, have you got the start and end catapult attach points the right way round? I'm trying to think what problems I had getting it to work the first time, but they were all down to syntax problems in the user defined section of the object properties, e.g. attachpt_attachpt_catapult_start_1 etc. Took me a day to spot that one.
Might be worth double checking the T-45 on the default carrier to confirm that works properly, or use the F/A-18. I take it you've tried extending the launch bar and then taxiing slowly through the attach point area pressing Shift+I to try and get it to hook on?
I don't think the hierarchy of the attach points matters, although mine are all just attached to the deck.



I found it wanted to be in afterburner, which is +80% throttle but a problem for non-afterburning types, could just be me though!

[michael davies]

The memory is a sometimes thing. I wonder how these guys write what happened during WWII with an old memory. I wouldn't trust mine.

I cant remember what happened last week !!, seriously I do struggle with all thats going on right now, let alone 65 years ago LOL.

It took me too many hours today and yesterday to remember where I had got to on the Essex projects and how to compile a FSx model since Sept, thats how fast I forget these things these days LOL.

Kindest

Michael

[SkippyBing]

Michael

http://www.simtours.net/defaultaircraftcarrier.php gives a schedule for the freeflight carriers in acceleration.

You shouldn't need the parking brake if you're hooked onto the cat, not sure what effect having it on has.
Depressingly it's always something simple that's stopping it working so you feel a bit of a t*t when you solve it rather than some sort of genius!

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Michael -
EDIT -
ISTR there might be a carrier with working catapults/arrestor cables
positioned statically offshore of the Golden Gate bridge.

I've updated the info at - FSDeveloper - Wiki - Catapult/Arrestor Operations (FSXA) (http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=Catapult/Arrestor_Operations_%28FSXA%29)

Its still a WIP.
but incorporates & hopefully clarifies some of the info from Paul's long blog post.

Paul & Skippy -
Maybe you could give it a onceover please.
Any tips/info/corrections would be appreciated.

HTH
ATB
Paul

[SkippyBing]

Paul,

added a few bits and a link to the mini tutorial I did on how to actually add the attach points as they're not in the attach point tool!

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Cheers Skippy
Excellent info.

Thought the runway might add the meatball.
Couldn't remember.

Much appreciated.
ATB
Paul

[michael davies]

Skippy,

Ok that proves the aircraft are ok and its my attach points, good thing with the carriers from that site is that once your locked on then the plane aligns with the track and the JBD raises, as the Essex does not have a JBD then it might be prudent if I add a deck drew whose arm raises or some sort of visual animation to say your launch bar is locked in place, something to consider before the next compile.

Now I just have to ascertain why my attach points dont work.

Best

Michael


Michael

http://www.simtours.net/defaultaircraftcarrier.php gives a schedule for the freeflight carriers in acceleration.

You shouldn't need the parking brake if you're hooked onto the cat, not sure what effect having it on has.
Depressingly it's always something simple that's stopping it working so you feel a bit of a t*t when you solve it rather than some sort of genius!

[michael davies]

Yeah that threw me for a while, thanks for the timely mail yesterday LOL.


Paul,

added a few bits and a link to the mini tutorial I did on how to actually add the attach points as they're not in the attach point tool!

Paul,

Its the cat that doesnt work yet, landing and trapping is OK, just the cat, now I have seen how it works on another carrier I know what I'm looking for, or how its supposed to work LOL, it'll be a silly syntax error some where I'm sure.

Best

Michael

[sparouty]

Hello,
I would like to share with you some points I noticed about attach points handling.
- runway attach points (runway lights and FLOLS) seem to work only if catapult attach points are added(?).
- cables attach points seem to need a hard deck to work
- catapults seem to work according its position. I made tests for my BigE model who's cat didn't work. I was sure that the code was OK, because the attach point objects were picked up from my Clemenceau working catapult. So I tought it was a question of distance between begin and end attach points, but it appears that moving my reference point from the bow to the island was a solution...

If anyone have similar observations, I wish we should be able to find out how the catapults work, all the 4 ones...

Last, I have a simple sample model (flight deck, attach points and light effect to show up positions) if anyone wants it for further tests, please MP me.

I hope it helps...
regards
Sylvain

[michael davies]

Hello,
I would like to share with you some points I noticed about attach points handling.
- runway attach points (runway lights and FLOLS) seem to work only if catapult attach points are added(?).
- cables attach points seem to need a hard deck to work
- catapults seem to work according its position. I made tests for my BigE model who's cat didn't work. I was sure that the code was OK, because the attach point objects were picked up from my Clemenceau working catapult. So I tought it was a question of distance between begin and end attach points, but it appears that moving my reference point from the bow to the island was a solution...

If anyone have similar observations, I wish we should be able to find out how the catapults work, all the 4 ones...

Last, I have a simple sample model (flight deck, attach points and light effect to show up positions) if anyone wants it for further tests, please MP me.

I hope it helps...
regards
Sylvain

Sylvain,

Well you might just have rescued my project from the recyle bin !, its about 3 miliseconds from total deletion, how can a simple attach point create so much angst and foul language ?.

Like you I've cut the model back to a hull, deck and attach points, to help find the invisible attach points I've placed dummy blocks that show up on deck, so I know its all lined up.

I'll go and try moving the cat ref points and see what happens, though surely the start needs to be where you connect to ?, is it the end that needs moving ?.

Ironically I did think it might be something like that as the balst shield I have is upside down and backwards ( doesnt work yet as the launch assist box isnt working ) which is usually a fault with the ref point location or axis rotation.

I also thought it might be the compiler or naming, but the wires all work so I must have the FSxA SDK and compiler installed, the naming is all correct and mirriors Pauls notes, PC-12s blog and Skippybings tutorial, I even hex checked the MS default code and the names are all the same, so it has to be something else and really fundimental too.

Off to play again <SIGH>.

Kindest

Michael

Addendum, Sylvain, your a bloody genius !, moving the whole shooting match ( cat start and end ) nearer to the vessel center point fixes everything, of course thats no good because the Essex Cat is to starboard bow, I dont have the runway points in, but do have ahard deck, I wonder if the runway points define the boundries of the attach points ?.

[stiz]

For example, the Quad 40s need to be in a three or four colors, this depends on their location and the paint scheme, you cant just paint one quad 40 in grey and leave it there, simplest thing is to map one and clone with each paint scheme, problem is, that will make four or five distinct seperate textures where the only difference is the base color, it would be smarter to use one large 1024 with a Quad mapped four times on it, each quarter in a different color, easy enough but I'm only just scraping by mapping and baking one item per texture, cloning it and mapping four times on one texture has me lost at the moment. I know whats needed but not the skills to achieve it, or to be frank the stomach to learn long hard winded inner depths of Max to get the result.

Doing baked textures isnt so hard for say aircraft or even a landing gear, but a decent Quad 40 model is another story, then duplicate four times into one texture is another task, setting Max to simple bake is easy, but you end up with a mish mash of polys all over the place, you need to start grouping them into some sort of cohesive form so its not just a map of 450 seperate polys. Indeed some parts can be replicated in model form from one map, examples would be the seats, magazines, sights or barrels, you only need map and bake one, then clone across when done to replicate the duplicate parts.

The way i'd do it :- map one of the guns to how you want (i tend to do flatten mapping and piece then together, not the quickest way but it works for me) then clone the gun say another 3 times, now with one of the guns selected attach the other ones you've just cloned, then in the unwarp UWV modifier, click select by elment, then select one of your guns and drag it into another portion of the map (might have to rescale etc), then do it for the others and when you done you'll have all 4 guns on the same texture each with their own uv space, so they'll all have their own AO and paint etc.

Also for texture bakeing have a read through this: http://www.aerodynamika.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1187043062



What I'm saying is, if I gave this to anyone else to paint or map they'd have a seizure LOL, I dont want simple grey bland textures for anything, it would be so easy to do that, I want a full 3D mapped and baked model, and that is going to take an inordinate amount of time and effort.


well after unwraping all the struts in an avro 504 nothing scares me anymore :blind: :icon_lol: current count on it is 248061 faces to give some idea :)



I've heard 250K is possible

you can go a lot higher than that as long as you keep each material to 64k verts ;)

If you want a insane person to map it all i'd be more than willing, plus i'm free at the moment :wave:

[michael davies]

Sylvain,

Ok some more tests, it appears the cat start point has to be close to the 'master' hierarchy part ref point, traditionally 3rd party developers put this at x,y,z 0,0,0, certainly in aircraft where 0,0,0 is the CoG. However around FS2002 MS changed the way they used 'their' ref point and placed them at the very front of the aircraft, so all values were negative ( tanks, control surfaces, landing gear points, eye points etc etc ). So following the above principle I moved the master part ref position to the front of the vessel and the cats now work in there correct places ( cat2 still to solve...JBD too ). Next I moved the ref point way out in front of the vessel ( +100m ) and again the cats refused to work.

Initial tests show that the master ref point needs to be within 30m ahead of the cat start or 20m behind, hopefully on the Enterprise you can find a point somewhere between all four cats so that it will trigger them....when cats 2-4 are solved.

I also think the default carriers are too small scale wise, they feel about 80% scale, I'd need to compile my Ronald Reagan and park it next to one of the default ones to see how far....if at all...the scale is out.

Attached my set up showing the ref point and hierarchy, initially I thought it might just be the parent of the attach points so made a dummy cat start ( yellow squares ) with its ref point very close, but its not that, its the master part ref point thats appears critical, the part can stay at 0,0,0, but the ref point needs moving, don't go up or down or the model will fly or sink lower.

One worry with moving the ref point was that the wires might no work, don't worry, they still do, with the ref point at the bow stem they still work just fine. Runway attach points have no bearing on cat start issues, in fact all then seem to do is add a massive set of glide slope lights, whose location currently seems impossible to tune or move in relation to the vessel ?.

Best

Michael

Addendum, now its stopped working again ?...grrr !

[michael davies]

The way i'd do it :- map one of the guns to how you want (i tend to do flatten mapping and piece then together, not the quickest way but it works for me) then clone the gun say another 3 times, now with one of the guns selected attach the other ones you've just cloned, then in the unwarp UWV modifier, click select by elment, then select one of your guns and drag it into another portion of the map (might have to rescale etc), then do it for the others and when you done you'll have all 4 guns on the same texture each with their own uv space, so they'll all have their own AO and paint etc.

Also for texture bakeing have a read through this: http://www.aerodynamika.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?num=1187043062



well after unwraping all the struts in an avro 504 nothing scares me anymore :blind: :icon_lol: current count on it is 248061 faces to give some idea :)




you can go a lot higher than that as long as you keep each material to 64k verts ;)

If you want a insane person to map it all i'd be more than willing, plus i'm free at the moment :wave:

Stitz, copied and pasted for a rainy day LOL, thanks for the pointers, exactly what I need, baby steps in baby speak :). I already had the link to baking, but glazed over the layers attributes in PSP so it never worked and I end up always baking as a one shot affair, it was the layer attibutes I wanted so I could paint 'underneath' the baked layer.

Will get back on the rest anon.

Kindest

Michael

[sparouty]

Hi Michael,
It's very interesting, I didn't try to move the 'master' hierarchy point.
What you find out explain me why my Clemenceau cat is working. In this picture I put green points on working catapults. The F14 is at the 0,0,0 point. Why cat2-4 don't work is still mysterious...:banghead:
By the way, you can compare default FSX carrier to Enterprise (and Clemenceau :whistle:)...
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/picture.php?albumid=131&pictureid=1232

Concerning JBD, have you got in your .mdl compilation log something like that: <!-- ++++ Processing Animation : blastshield_0_pct ++++ -->?

If not, it means that the JBD animation is not compiled...

Good luck
Sylvain

[michael davies]

Hmm, the ref point seems to be a read herring, suddenly it all didn't work, so I set it all back to original, then moved cat1 start back toward 0,0,0 and suddenly it worked again, it works out to +62m, even +72m in a straight line, but offset to port 5m and it breaks, It cannot be the off set as the default must be +30m off the center line.

It looks like the Cat start must be within 60-65m of 0,0,0 not the ref point, that would fit for the Nimitz and Enterprise and because there cats are very long and start close to the middle of the vessel, on your Clemenceau you have your 0,0,0 near the front of the vessel, that will allow your bow cat to work but even if we got cat 2 to work I don't think your port cat will work as its to fat from 0,0,0.

The problem with the Essex model is that its quite long ( 265m ) and the cats are old hydraulic ones which were quite short, so the starts are a long way from 0,0,0. The next trick is to shunt my whole model back 20m and effectively off set the 0,0,0 by 20m fwd, not just the ref point but the whole scene, if my theory is right then that will solve it.

Good comparison on the carriers heres mine and it looks like default is pretty close, that makes your friends Enterprise too long and not wide enough, if you want dimensions to compare with then let me know, I do have some drawings of the Big E kicking around somewhere, mind you have to be careful with the Big E as her deck is different from all the other carriers, especially around the stern area, though yours looks pretty close so far :).

I've added a 60m ring around the vessel which is where I think the cat starts have to be, I might be in trouble with cat 4 myself, attached also the Essex with the same 60m ring and as you can see my cats are out side, the yellow blocks are where it works, the red is where they should be.

Ok time to shunt my Essex and see if it helps.

Best

Michael

[sparouty]

Nice pictures!!
I think your analyse is right. I'm sure it is more a side-effect than a rationnal decision...
The position of my Clemenceau 0,0,0 is a work-around for a wake effect issue: I wanted to have wakes along the hull. I will certainly change that soon.

Your remark about Enterprise size sow confusion in my mind, if you have drawings I'll accept them with pleasure, it will help me to check it up.

I'm going back to these strange cat2-4...
Thank you and regards,
Sylvain

PS : dummy's question : how do you insert clickable thumbnails pictures to your post?

[michael davies]

Ok, that all worked, shunted the whole model 'except' the master hierarchy part back 10m so that the cat starts are +62m from 0,0,0 and it works, then I pushed it out in 1m increments to the original 72m.....and it still works ?, move the whole model back fwd 10m and it doesn't.

So rather than waste more time I'm going to stick to the 60-65m bubble as that seems to consistently work, problem is now that all the other Essex models ( long - short hull, Korea and different weapons fits) plus associated layers all now have to be moved to match this new master.

JDB, well it is generating a xanim file so it seems to be working, the JDB is there but facing directly down below decks so it'll be a syntax, hierarchy or animation key frame error, currently its 0-100, with 0 as down and 100 as up and linked to the attach point, not sure if thats right or not, should work.

Best

Michael

[michael davies]

Sylvain see attached for attachement :).

Wakes, yes I had a simular problem and made my 0,0,0 at the center and then added the wake in the cfg

[EFFECTS]
wake=fx_wake_carrier

however whilst I Hex checked the default carriers I noticed they were attaching all sorts of effects in their code and there were some wake ones in there I think, that is the only way you can add two wakes. If you dont use wake effects and only use a cfg wake then you only get one wake and its generated at 0,0,0. So for Catermerans or dual float plans I think you need to add attach effects and then delete the cfg ones.

Enterprise plans, will look them out shortly, you want pictures too ?, 240+, many high quality 3000x2000 sized, 216MB in total.

Best

Michael


Nice pictures!!
I think your analyse is right. I'm sure it is more a side-effect than a rationnal decision...
The position of my Clemenceau 0,0,0 is a work-around for a wake effect issue: I wanted to have wakes along the hull. I will certainly change that soon.

Your remark about Enterprise size sow confusion in my mind, if you have drawings I'll accept them with pleasure, it will help me to check it up.

I'm going back to these strange cat2-4...
Thank you and regards,
Sylvain

PS : dummy's question : how do you insert clickable thumbnails pictures to your post?

[chinookmark]

Regarding the wake effects: I remember reading a couple things about ships and effects, I think at fsshipyards, but I don't remember for sure. If it's a pilotable ship, you can pretty much add whatever effects you can add to an airplane. But the AI ones will only have one wake. Some of the designers created special wake effects that added a bow wave, smoke effects, and lights to the wake effect. You can offset the position of each effect within the effect (.fx) file. The only drawback is you will only see smoke and lights if the ship is moving.

[PutPut]

Just to note I am watching this thread very closely. I have always used the rcbco gauges for carrier ops and have been very happy with them. However, I am a designer still not too old to learn new tricks so I am in the middle of designing a airplane-carrier combination using the attachpoint approach. I am perfectly willing to wait and see how you all make out.

Thanks, Paul

[michael davies]

Just to note I am watching this thread very closely. I have always used the rcbco gauges for carrier ops and have been very happy with them. However, I am a designer still not too old to learn new tricks so I am in the middle of designing a airplane-carrier combination using the attachpoint approach. I am perfectly willing to wait and see how you all make out.

Thanks, Paul

Cheers !!, to be honest its a bit of as mess, if you just tried to follow the SDK you'd get pretty much no where LOL.

I'm fighting the JBDs now but theres no text anywhere on how to do this, it simply says name part blah blah, key frame 0-100, so you do and nothing happens, then it says use attach point xyz, so you do and nothing happens, do you attach the attach point to the JBD or vice versa, do you use the animation tool to add the code ?, its just garbage and not documented at all. The SDK calls for blast_shield_0_pct, yet the animation manager calls for blastshield_0_pct, which syntax is right, you cant alter the animation one so you'd better hope thats right and the SDK is a typo ?.

If it wasnt for Skippy and Sylvain I'd have walked off days ago in a strop LOL. When I'm done I'll hopefully do a little idiots guide on each step and how to get it to work and stick it on my blog, I'm not saying what every one else has written is no good, just that some times there's assumptions made and for a numptie like me the're assumptions too many LOL.

FSx is far too complicated when it comes to many things, in the good old days you just named it the right way and it did what it was supposed to do :).

Kindest

Michael

Addendum, ok got it !, sort of, some names work and some dont ?.

[Helldiver]

As far as wakes are concerned, at flank speed when launching or recovering aircraft, that is going flat out at 37 knots, the ship would have a rooster tail, quite pronounced.
As far as a bow wave I can remember about a 14 foot lump of water coming at me should we ever ditch and turn us into the rooster tail.
In bits and pieces.

[sparouty]

Hi Michael,
Have a look to the Enterprise JBD I coded.
The little purple cube is my dummy with the attachpt_blast_shield_1 property. The small xyz axis is the JBD pivot.
JBD pivot and attach point are at the same place.
Last, it shows you the animation window, where I choose blashield_0_pct animation for cat #1 (numbers are from 0 to 3 there and 1 to 4 everywhere else...).
Frame 0: the shield is down
Frame 60 (for me): the shield is full up

I hope it will help you :)

Thank you for the drawing, I will check my model as soon as possible..

Regards
Sylvain

PS : thanks for the thumbnails tip ! :)

[michael davies]

Hi Michael,
Have a look to the Enterprise JBD I coded.
The little purple cube is my dummy with the attachpt_blast_shield_1 property. The small xyz axis is the JBD pivot.
JBD pivot and attach point are at the same place.
Last, it shows you the animation window, where I choose blashield_0_pct animation for cat #1 (numbers are from 0 to 3 there and 1 to 4 everywhere else...).
Frame 0: the shield is down
Frame 60 (for me): the shield is full up

I hope it will help you :)

Thank you for the drawing, I will check my model as soon as possible..

Regards
Sylvain

PS : thanks for the thumbnails tip ! :)

Interesting, it appears your part name has no issues and you are using blastshield_0_pct, that doesnt work here at all ?, will try and recompile again.

Enterprise, your welcome.

Best

Michael

[crashaz]

I love threads like this... all of us get to learn a lot. :focus:

[Helldiver]

You undoubtly know this anyway, but the catapults on the Essex class Carriers were hydraulic. They had this big accumlator and dump it's pressure into, I believe was a 36 inch piston. Just for fun we would get near it when it went off and see who could put their face close to it when it fired.
This was in the days when we didn't have television and nobody even heard of dope. So we got our jollies any way we could.
I understand that the new catapults are steam fired. I guess they have someone from the black gang running it.

[michael davies]

You undoubtly know this anyway, but the catapults on the Essex class Carriers were hydraulic. They had this big accumlator and dump it's pressure into, I believe was a 36 inch piston.

Correct, and despite many mis written text's, steam catapults were not used in Korea :), these only came with the SCB27C refits, all entering service after Korea.

In the attach points you can add a steam effect for the cat launch, obviously for the WWII and Korean versions you dont add that script :).

Best

Michael

[Bjoern]

This was in the days when we didn't have television and nobody even heard of dope.

Almost spat my coffee all across my desk.

Nice one, Helldiver! http://ugly.plzdiekthxbye.net/medium/m005.gif http://ugly.plzdiekthxbye.net/small/s083.gif

[noshadez]

Any more info on this is great..I too can only get Cat#1 to work.. 2,3 and 4 are no go with quadripple recompiling the attachpts over and over to make sure of no syntax problems.. I even moved cat 1 to cat 2s location and it worked there too..but cat 2 dont work nowhere or 3 or 4 even moving them to the models center reference point..I guess its good that at least 1 one them work..you could put a mission pointer over it and a text saying "Due to lack of military funding only cat one works..so good luck with your mission against the incoming bogies!" He Hehttp://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[michael davies]

I had a quick dabble a few Weeks back but no joy yet, even more worrying is that my blastshield 0 doesn't work, only blastshield 1 which is behind cat 1, in theory and according to the SDK it should 0-3 and cats 1-4, now by rights if you follow the rest of multi animation tags like cowl flaps etc then they should all run in sequence, ie 0-4.

Though I did transpose my work to the Reagan which initially didn't work, it took hours for me to work out that I needed to press Shift + I to latch on, I'd forgotten that in just a few weeks !, I don't do enough of this enough of the time to keep up and my memory is shot away LOL, they tell me to write things down....which I do...but then I cannot remember where I wrote it :).

When the weather turns foul again I'll have another big session on both carriers and perhaps progress some others I've in the pipeline.

Kindest

Michael


Any more info on this is great..I too can only get Cat#1 to work.. 2,3 and 4 are no go with quadripple recompiling the attachpts over and over to make sure of no syntax problems.. I even moved cat 1 to cat 2s location and it worked there too..but cat 2 dont work nowhere or 3 or 4 even moving them to the models center reference point..I guess its good that at least 1 one them work..you could put a mission pointer over it and a text saying "Due to lack of military funding only cat one works..so good luck with your mission against the incoming bogies!" He Hehttp://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[sparouty]

Hi everybody!
I wish the weather turns foul again!! :whistle:

I have to check why blastshield-0 and cat-1 works with my carriers and not with yours, Michael???
Did you modify your modeldef.xml? Did you think of sprinkling your JBD with salt and garlic?? :d

In desperation, I'll try to code cat 0-3 instead 1-4...

I add also steam effect and shuttle. I deleted this last one because I didn't find out how to synchronise shuttle and plane during the shot...(another SDK mystery)

Let me know if you want some more details about these stuffs...

Regards,
Sylvain

[michael davies]

Sylvain,

Ok I re looked at the codes and I'm surprised any of it works to be honest.

From the SDK we have

Attach point Cat 1-4 Start and End
Attach point Cable 1-4
Attach point Blastshield 1-4

All looking good so far ?, now the animations, the blastshield animations are

Blastshield_0_pct to Blastshield_3_pct

This doesn't line up with 1-4 at all, in fact you can call Cat 1 blasteshield animation any of these below and it still works

Blastshield_0_01
Blastshield_1_01
Blastshield_0_pct_01

None of these really align to the SDK attachponit codes, so how does the sim know which blast shield to raise, the animated parts are not linked in the hierarchy, there all independently named and separate, see attached.

Its all a bit hit and miss as far as I can see at the moment ?.

Best

Michael


Hi everybody!
I wish the weather turns foul again!! :whistle:

I have to check why blastshield-0 and cat-1 works with my carriers and not with yours, Michael???
Did you modify your modeldef.xml? Did you think of sprinkling your JBD with salt and garlic?? :d

In desperation, I'll try to code cat 0-3 instead 1-4...

I add also steam effect and shuttle. I deleted this last one because I didn't find out how to synchronise shuttle and plane during the shot...(another SDK mystery)

Let me know if you want some more details about these stuffs...

Regards,
Sylvain

[noshadez]

Thankz gents..Somewhere in this thread someone said to have the Pct part animate the B shield and then add the attachpt in that excact same xyz location seperate from the blast shield parts..That worked for me after adding it..my parent animated part for the blastshield was blastshield_1_pct..There must be some secret aces thing going on on for other cats and BS to work..BS as in (Blast shields) of coursehttp://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon22.gif

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Michael -
Can't see in the SDK
where you're finding the blastshield 0 - 3 options.



Excuse the font size & colour,
and the pct section,
no idea if it's correct, (or utter b:icon_lol:ll:icon_lol:cks),
it's just how I read it.

Just looking to correct any documentation.



Aren't the supported attachpoints -
attachpt_catapult_start_n
attachpt_catapult_end_n
attachpt_blast_shield_n
indexed as n = 1 through 4



Following from that -
Animation percentages for a blastshield -
blast_shield_n_pct



Example for blastshield number 3 would be -
blast_shield_3_pct

Example animation percentage values -
blast_shield_3_000 - Flat on deck.
Blast_Shield_3_025
blast_shield_3_050
blast_shield_3_075
blast_shield_3_100 - Fully raised.


Use spelling blast_shield or blastshield
whatever's in your attachpoint tool.



Side note -
Only guessing here -
cat 1 may work with blast 0
as it's the first available.
Does cat 2 then work with blast 1 ?



HTH
ATB
Paul

[SkippyBing]

Quick summary of what I've got working on the Ark.

One catapult only, again I can't get the other one to work no matter what.

Blast shield. On the Ark this consists of four parts that raise up to form a kind of U shape, anyway for Cat 1 I'm using blastshield_1_pct as the animation on all the parts. I copied one of the JBD meshes and attached the following code:- attachpt_blast_shield_1, that ensured the pivot point etc. was identical to the JBD's. Strangely I only had to do that to one of the four parts, the rest just worked as well?!?

I'm really not sure what the point of the attach point is but if it's not there it won't work.

[Helldiver]

Some stuff that comes to mind. At one time some Admiral came up with the idea that. “Gee Fellas, why don’t we move our carriers by airplanes. There just sitting around not doing anything. We could save all these outrageous tug boat fees”.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
No one dared to tell the Admiral he was wearing his pants on backwards so they went along with him. So they took 24 fighters and place twelve on both sides. Six up forward and six up aft on each side, all pointing outboard.<o:p></o:p>
Now to pull the carrier from the port dock, all the planes on the starboard side would two-block their engines and gradually the ship would pull away. Very gradually...
Then to turn the ship six on the starboard up front and six on the port side aft would pour the coal and slowly the ship would turn. After 24 ruined engines, not to mention some really pissed off pilots they finally abandoned this idea. The Admiral went back to his rubber room. I saw this happen twice before they gave up on it.<o:p></o:p>
Now when the ship tied up at Quonset Point the carrier would nose into the dock and let the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place>Narragansett Bay</st1:place> current push the tail in. I don’t know if Flight Simulator allows for currents but it’s not a bad idea were there are ships involved.<o:p></o:p>
Finally, I don’t quite believe all this talk about catching a hook (or "trapping" as the young guys say) There is nothing in Flight Simulator experience that will even come close to what is like to have your head come out of your tailbone and at the same time hearing the damdest crash the ever happened to you.<o:p></o:p>
Launching from a catapult is also a lot of fun, especially when you’re fully loaded. - And you’re praying that the pilot isn’t. The main job of the gunner is to keep the pilot awake.
But it’s kind of a controlled explosion and you’re powerless to do anything about it. The you glance downwards and your crawling about five feet above the water and there’s this big ship about to gobble you up and mince you with its screws. Eventually the gear comes up and you’re flying. - Thank God.<o:p></o:p>

[michael davies]

Paul,

I got the 0-3 notations from the SDK here ( see attached ) quite clearly it labels the animations 'n' as 0-3 ?, crazy I know but it does say 0-3 and it does work, in fact you can call them 0 or 1 and it still works. In fact I intially had blastshield behind Cat1 labeled as blastshield_1 and that worked too ?, go figure.

Hope that helps.

Best

Michael

[BASys]

Hi Folks

Cheers Michael
Sorry about that.

I should have realised :icon_lol:
A search of the SDK help file for the word blast
didn't also find/list the Attach Point Names page.

Once we sort all this,
I'll update the FSDev wiki page.

Many thanks
ATB
Paul

[MudMarine]

No one heard of dope back then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness One of the funniest (not intended) movies ever made, circa 1936.

[michael davies]

Paul,

Not a problem old bean, searching the SDK rarely reveals what your looking for, I must confess I'd forgotten where I'd seen it and it took me a while to 're-find' it again :).

Kindest

Michael



Hi Folks

Cheers Michael
Sorry about that.

I should have realised :icon_lol:
A search of the SDK help file for the word blast
didn't also find/list the Attach Point Names page.

Once we sort all this,
I'll update the FSDev wiki page.

Many thanks
ATB
Paul

[Navy Chief]

Ok, I have NO idea how to design anything. But I do appreciate everything you guys do to make this simulation more realistic and enjoyable!

Seems to me that pretty soon, the only things missing will be the smell of the flight deck, having to duck behind the jet exhausts, scrambling under the taxiing jets, and covering your face from the bits of flying nonskid!

NC

[noshadez]

Ok guys I finally got a slight break..I did a Hex study of the accel carrier and looked at mine too.. and I found the accel carrier has the (C) in catapult in high case..in other it is as - attachpt_Catapult_start_2 I edited mine wich was attachpt_catapult_start_2 in the hex editor to match the same as the veh accel carrier and suddenly my Cat 2 worked. There is something case sensitive here going on..I got to looking again and my cat 1 had (C) in the upper case--probably by accident.No wonder it worked.So do not copy the attachpt names from the SDK as they are wrong in the case..http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[noshadez]

Ok the whole thing works now-all 4 cats..plus thanks to the help of the boundary thingy info from Michael ..I did have to move my aft cats up a few meters to get in boundary..and thanks Sylvian for yor patience and helping me with the wires and cat 1..you guys rock.. now off to get all the blastshields..Ron

[michael davies]

Bugga !, I noticed that weeks ago and tried the capital C as well and it didnt work, in fact lower case c works for cat one just fine, having said that I didnt know about the boundry issue so that could have been why capital C didnt work then, I hadnt tried it since.

Damn so close and so far away:banghead:, good find old chap, I'll set mine up tonight when I get home from work and see if it all now works.

Regarding the boundry issue, if you want to keep your cat starts in the right place you only need to move the scene root ref point fwds, in my case a dummy point, mind if your modeling a CVN then be careful as Cat four is a long way aft of midships ( ahh re read your mail, you already found that problem :) ) so if you move the ref point fwds it may fall out side of the distance bubble.

I'm not sure the distance bubble really exists, initially if your outside the 60-70m zone the cat wont work, move the cat back into the zone and it works, then if you move it back to the original place it still seems to work, its almost like it latches on once its working ?.

Anyway, glad someone other than Aces now has four cats working, well done !, have you got any shots of your work, always nice to look at others projects :).

Kindest

Michael



Ok guys I finally got a slight break..I did a Hex study of the accel carrier and looked at mine too.. and I found the accel carrier has the (C) in catapult in high case..in other it is as - attachpt_Catapult_start_2 I edited mine wich was attachpt_catapult_start_2 in the hex editor to match the same as the veh accel carrier and suddenly my Cat 2 worked. There is something case sensitive here going on..I got to looking again and my cat 1 had (C) in the upper case--probably by accident.No wonder it worked.So do not copy the attachpt names from the SDK as they are wrong in the case..http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[sparouty]

:jump:
Great day!!
Thank you very much Ron!!
I've got a couple of catapults to code now :d
The last dark point of carrier ops features, to my opinion, is the shuttle...
I can't manage to make it synchronized/linked with the launched plane...

Thank you again for this great discovery!!!
:ernae:
Sylvain

EDIT : I've just try it and after having adjusted my scene root ref point (according to the "boundry" rule) all my 4 BigE cats work perfectly!! Springtime have suddenly arrived in Pairs :)

[sparouty]

Hi (again)!
Yes thanks to Noshadez, all my catapults and JBDs are working fine. In the same move I add also the stream effects :)

For the JBD animations: blastshield, "pistons", retractable cabins for catapult control and shuttles (moving back in positionfor attachment) are linked to the same animation blastshield_N_pct (N from 0 to 3).

The attached point attachpt_blast_shield_N (N from 1 to 4) seem to command the animation. I put it exactly at the same location than the blastshield pivot, but I don't know if it is really mandatory : like SkippyBing's JBD, all the parts are animating but only one of them is postionned according the attached point...:confused:

I join, just for fun, a little WIP screen shot from brand new catapult#1 operator

Thank you again!!
Sylvain

[EgoR64]

:wavey:

Hi sparouty,

Very cool, I like the Cat Operator, I like the Cat Pully for effect too !!
:friday:

:ernae::ernae::ernae:

[SkippyBing]

Noshadez, awesome detective work! I've finally managed to get the second cat on the Ark to work now!

Sylvain, how do you get the catapult steam to work?

[sparouty]

Hi SkippyBing,
For catapult steam, I add for each catapult, 5 combined attached points: Each objects have fx_Steam_Catapult attached effect and a visibility property (cf attached screenshot).

Here is an example of user object property (catapult #1, steam object#0):

FSXML = <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?> <FSMakeMdlData version="9.0"> <Attachpoint name="attachpt_Steam_Catapult_1_0"> <AttachedObject> <Effect effectName="fx_Steam_Catapult" effectParams=""/> </AttachedObject> </Attachpoint> <Visibility name="Catapult1_Steam0"> </Visibility> </FSMakeMdlData>


The visibility property is numbered from 0 (start point) to 4 (end point).
I think it have to be tested with several launches in the same session/flight to validate that effect works each time. I had some strange issues with shuttle during trapping/lauching flights. Unfortunately, I don't have time (or skill) for that...:whistle:
Regards,
Sylvain

[SkippyBing]

Sylvain, Thanks very much, I'll play around with the code this evening and see how it goes!

[wilycoyote4]

looks like progress :ernae: you fellas are going to produce a carrier :typing: keep at it, please, several heads are better than one.

[noshadez]

Good work everyone..I will be going off the plank this year with ole Harry Truman #75:monkies:

[michael davies]

Ok,

Its official I'm beat !, thanks to noshadez for conformation of the capital C, ironically I already had all mine at capital C but cat 2 end had an extra space in the code so it didnt work, which basically means I wasted four weeks for a space !.

However the biggest issue is blastshield animation, all the attach ponits work and all the animations work but when you add from the animation manager blastshield_0 behind cat one it fails to work, blastshield_1 behind cat 2 then moves when your on cat 1. Change the animation manager to 1 behind 1 and 2 behind 2 and it all works, I suspect 3 behind 3 will work but what about 4, there is no blastshield_4 in animation manager so its never going to work.

I currently fail to see how people get four blast shields to work :(.

Best

Michael

[michael davies]

Ok, I got it !!, I dont know how others manage it but my animation manager seems corrupt or seriously screwed up, it will only allow me to assign blastshield_n_pct, where n=0-3.

You'd assume that

0 goes behind cat 1
1 goes behind cat 2
2 goes behind cat 3
3 goes behind cat 4

Which is all a bit crazy as all the other carrier attachpoints and names run from 1-4, not 0-3, yet all aircraft aniamtions like props and cowl flaps run from 0-3 ?.

Anyway, blastshield 0 has never worked here, following the set up above only resulted in the next highest # blastshield to raise, so, on cat 1 shield 2 raises, cat 2 shield 3 raises and cat 3 shield 4 raise, cat 1 fails to work.

Going back to the default carrier in Hex it clearly shows no blastshield_0_pct, they all follow the rest of the carrier animations of 1-4, so !, I assigned 1 to 1, 2 to 2, 3 to 3 and 0 to 4, compiled and then Hex edited the mdl file to change the blastshield 0 to a 4, and bingo it all four now work.

What I need to find now is why my animation manger has clearly got a corrupt animation tag within it, does it parse the animation xml ?, or is that part of the code stored elsewhere, I can get round it by manually editing the mdl in Hex after each compile, but it would be nice to have the animation manager have the correct code syntax.

Further more, if any one is using animation code blastshield_0_pct, how is it working !.

Kindest

Michael

[sparouty]

Hello Michael,

Here is my Blastshield Modeldef.xml part :

<PartInfo>
<Name>blastshield_0_pct</Name>
<AnimLength>100</AnimLength>
<Animation>
<Parameter>
<Sim>
<Variable>BLAST SHIELD POSITION:1</Variable>
<Units>percent</Units>
</Sim>
</Parameter>
</Animation>
</PartInfo>
<PartInfo>
<Name>blastshield_1_pct</Name>
<AnimLength>100</AnimLength>
<Copy>blastshield_0_pct</Copy>
<Animation>
<Parameter>
<Sim>
<Variable>BLAST SHIELD POSITION:2</Variable>
</Sim>
</Parameter>
</Animation>
</PartInfo>
<PartInfo>
<Name>blastshield_2_pct</Name>
<AnimLength>100</AnimLength>
<Copy>blastshield_0_pct</Copy>
<Animation>
<Parameter>
<Sim>
<Variable>BLAST SHIELD POSITION:3</Variable>
</Sim>
</Parameter>
</Animation>
</PartInfo>
<PartInfo>
<Name>blastshield_3_pct</Name>
<AnimLength>100</AnimLength>
<Copy>blastshield_0_pct</Copy>
<Animation>
<Parameter>
<Sim>
<Variable>BLAST SHIELD POSITION:4</Variable>
</Sim>
</Parameter>
</Animation>
</PartInfo>


As you can see, I'm using Blastshield_0_pct for cat#1. Tell me if it help you.
Regards,
Sylvain

[noshadez]

I had the same problems toward the end..when I was on B4 B3 would rise and vice versa..I compile everything through xtomdl beind I use FSDS. Here is my final all Blast shields working Xanim file if it helps


<ANIM p length="100.000000" guid="0E681B9C-3CD8-4d1e-B9E3-B28610A8DEFD" name="blastshield_0_pct" <>
<ANIM p length="100.000000" guid="0E681B9C-3CD8-4d1e-B9E3-B28610A8DEFD" name="blastshield_0_pct" <><ANIM p length="100.000000" guid="0E681B9C-3CD8-4d1e-B9E3-B28610A8DEFD" name="blastshield_0_pct" <>type="Sim" typeParam="AutoPlay" typeParam2="blastshield_0_pct">
<ANIMSTREAM id=0 length="100.000000" name="Rotation" partName="blastshield_1_pct">
<KEYFRAME data="0.000000;0.000000;0.000000;1.000000" type="Quaternion" time="0.000000" />
<KEYFRAME data="0.559193;0.000000;0.000000;0.829038" type="Quaternion" time="100.000000" />
</ANIMSTREAM>
</ANIM>// End anim block

<ANIM p length="100.000000" guid="0E681B9C-3CD8-4d1e-B9E3-B28610A8DEFE" name="blastshield_1_pct" <>type="Sim" typeParam="AutoPlay" typeParam2="blastshield_1_pct">
<ANIMSTREAM id=0 length="100.000000" name="Rotation" partName="blastshield_2_pct">
<KEYFRAME data="0.000000;0.000000;0.000000;1.000000" type="Quaternion" time="0.000000" />
<KEYFRAME data="0.573576;0.000000;0.000000;0.819152" type="Quaternion" time="100.000000" />
</ANIMSTREAM>
</ANIM>// End anim block

<ANIM p length="100.000000" guid="0E681B9C-3CD8-4d1e-B9E3-B28610A8DEFF" name="blastshield_2_pct" <>type="Sim" typeParam="AutoPlay" typeParam2="blastshield_2_pct">
<ANIMSTREAM id=0 length="100.000000" name="Rotation" partName="blastshield_3_pct">
<KEYFRAME data="0.000000;0.000000;0.000000;1.000000" type="Quaternion" time="0.000000" />
<KEYFRAME data="0.598325;0.000000;0.000000;0.801254" type="Quaternion" time="100.000000" />
</ANIMSTREAM>
</ANIM>// End anim block



<ANIM p length="100.000000" guid="0E681B9C-3CD8-4d1e-B9E3-B28610A8DF00" name="blastshield_3_pct" <>type="Sim" typeParam="AutoPlay" typeParam2="blastshield_3_pct">
<ANIMSTREAM id=0 length="100.000000" name="Rotation" partName="blastshield_4_pct">
<KEYFRAME data="0.000000;-0.054000;0.000000;1.000000" type="Quaternion" time="0.000000" />
<KEYFRAME data="0.598325;-0.004000;0.000000;0.801254" type="Quaternion" time="100.000000" />
</ANIMSTREAM>
</ANIM>// End anim block

Hmm--For some reason only this part of the code will appear in the SOH forum but I do have blastshield_0_pct for BS1 working correctly

[michael davies]

Hi guys,

Yup quite clearly you have blastshield_0_pct working, I'm at work right now so cannot check my anim files.....didn't think to look in there (face-palm), however I suspect thay will match Sylvains line for line, I think Max is exporting fine and makemdl is working correctly, it might be my sim thats awry.

No matter how I do it zero refuses to work, I checked the default and that too does not have a zero, it has 1-4_pct.

My modelmf.xml also shows blastshield 0-3 but when compiled 0 just refuses to work, even if I do set them all as 0-3 they still work but are off set as I laid out above, ie cat 1 moves blastshield 2 etc etc. Its not a problem with the part names or the attach points, they all work fine its the animation tool manager where you add the code that seems to be causing the problem, whenever you add 0 that blastshield refuses to work, change it to any of the others and the blastshield works perfectly which proves all the tags and attachpts are working correctly.

The only difference I have here is that my core FSx DVD and thus my Acc update are not shop copies but beta tester copies, so there may have been a change between the beta copy ( even though its a final RTM copy ) and the actual shop shelf copy.

I went back to the Essex with is single Cat 1 and tried blastshield 0 and it doesnt work there, the theory being that the other cats and blastshields might be messing with the animations.

Off course if my sim is different from others then the blastshields may not work globally, I'll need to send the Reagan to someone with a shop copy of FSx to test ( Sylvain ? ).

I'm also using Max8 so that might make a difference as well, the codes might be different to FSDS or Gmax ( doubtful ), all I know is that my Hex code now matches the default CVN Hex code when I change 0 to 4.

All very odd and bizzare !.

Kindest

Michael

[SkippyBing]

It's times like this I'm glad the RN has never had a carrier with more than two cats!

This does also make me wonder if we've actually got all four arrestor wires working? Has anyone made a gauge that indicates which wire has been caught, if not I might knock one up later.

[EgoR64]

:wavey:

Hi SkippyBing,

I starting to think no, I tried the mission sdk, there is a Simvar.CableCaughtbyTailhook condition, i was assuming that each of the 4 - wires would fire on the default High definition Carrier, but everytime I go long on the deck I pick up Wire 1 everytime, Either does not work or I'm just that Good !! LOL !! :friday:

:ernae::ernae:

[sparouty]

Hi everybody,
Michael your problem seem to be very strange??
Of course, yes, I can test your Reagan Carrier :) I've got a shop copy of FSX (RTM) with Acceleration (no SP2 update before Acc.), and I'm modeling with 3DSmax7...

SkippyBing, as EgoR64 said , with mission scripting you can show up the wire caught. Have a look at PropTrig_CableNN trigger functions into the Carrier practise mission (the xml is included in the acceleration SDK).
May be a "small" xml gauge should do the same?

Regards
Sylvain

[SkippyBing]

I think an XML gauge will do it using the cable caught by tailhook variable as EgoR64 said. It does require a level of skill on the part of my landings though.....

[michael davies]

Good point, I've wondered the same, though I always seem to catch 3 or 4 and run long down the deck, maybe they need to be inside the boundry as well ?.

Best

Michael



This does also make me wonder if we've actually got all four arrestor wires working? Has anyone made a gauge that indicates which wire has been caught, if not I might knock one up later.

[noshadez]

This does also make me wonder if we've actually got all four arrestor wires working? Has anyone made a gauge that indicates which wire has been caught, if not I might knock one up later.

I have mine in a test mission using the simvar condition with a text to fire for each one and I test caught them all.. Just to note on the cats I at first got the part name mixed up with the modeldef.xml names so it is like this for mine
Cat 1
blastshield_0_pct = modeldef name
blastshield_1_pct = the animated part name
Cat 2
blastshield_1_pct = modeldef name
blastshield_2_pct = the animated part name
Cat 3
blastshield_2_pct = modeldef name
blastshield_3_pct = the animated part name
Cat 4
blastshield_3_pct = modeldef name
blastshield_4_pct = the animated part name

[michael davies]

Ok, thanks for that,

I'll package it up tomorrow and send it over, I just need to see if all blastshields raise with respect to each Cat.

Best

Michael


Hi everybody,
Michael your problem seem to be very strange??
Of course, yes, I can test your Reagan Carrier :) I've got a shop copy of FSX (RTM) with Acceleration (no SP2 update before Acc.), and I'm modeling with 3DSmax7...

SkippyBing, as EgoR64 said , with mission scripting you can show up the wire caught. Have a look at PropTrig_CableNN trigger functions into the Carrier practise mission (the xml is included in the acceleration SDK).
May be a "small" xml gauge should do the same?

Regards
Sylvain

[SkippyBing]

Ego, I'd say your landings are that good! Using the T-45 and the Ark Royal my first landing was number 1 wire and the second was number 4, third was a bolter so I diverted ashore!

If anyone wants I can knock my XML gauge into respectable shape and put it somewhere for download.

[michael davies]

Yup, pretty much the same for me, though I have found that the part names can be blastshield_1, or blast_shield_1_pct so I dont think the actual part name is important at all, what is important is the modeldef you assign in the animation tool manager roll out.

I had mine set up exactly like yours but blast 0 failed to work, blast 1 worked fine, but thats behind cat 2 !.

Everything on the face of it checks out the same as everyone elses, its almost like my sim wont see blast 0, but does see blast 4, what concerns me more is that the default carrier is also 1-4, yet everyone here is using 0-3 and they all work, and it was only your counclusion that caps C made the other cats work, so if I've matched the default by Hex edititng then it should be ok, but then how is everyone elses working ?.

Even with just one cat blast 0 refuses to work:banghead: on the face of it I've done something wrong, but then why does blast 4 work, it'd be handy if some one else just hex edited there blast 3 to 4 and saw what happened in sim, my gut is that it will work.

I seem to recall similar things with tires, the SDK required tire_still, slow, blurred, but if you just named it c_tire it did the whole lot automatically.

The only other difference is that I'm not testing in a mission, I'm in free flight from an AI moving carrier.

I tell ya, its enough to drive anyone insane !.

Best

Michael



This does also make me wonder if we've actually got all four arrestor wires working? Has anyone made a gauge that indicates which wire has been caught, if not I might knock one up later.

I have mine in a test mission using the simvar condition with a text to fire for each one and I test caught them all.. Just to note on the cats I at first got the part name mixed up with the modeldef.xml names so it is like this for mine
Cat 1
blastshield_0_pct = modeldef name
blastshield_1_pct = the animated part name
Cat 2
blastshield_1_pct = modeldef name
blastshield_2_pct = the animated part name
Cat 3
blastshield_2_pct = modeldef name
blastshield_3_pct = the animated part name
Cat 4
blastshield_3_pct = modeldef name
blastshield_4_pct = the animated part name

[SkippyBing]

Michael, as I understand it for FSX the part name is irrelevant, you could call them Banana, Apple, Pear and Peach as long as you assign the right animation tag with the animation manager tool. Off to bed now but I'll play around with renaming my cats tomorrow to see if I can figure out what the problem is.

[michael davies]

Skippy,

Yes I've sort of come to the same conclusion, having said that, naming parts to match there animation code is good book keeping, so despite how refreshing banana 1-4 would be, I think I'll stick to copying the animation syntax :).

Look fwd to your test results.

Your gauge sounds very useful so please load it up, if only for modellers to test their attachpts and such, unlike cats and blastshields, wires show no visuals in the game.

Getting back to the animation manager and Sylvains comments on shuttles, I only have one shuttle animation to choose from, shuttle_0, I noted no shuttles on the default carrier so do they really work and how do you add shuttles 2-4 animations ?.

Best

Michael

[EgoR64]

Ego, I'd say your landings are that good! Using the T-45 and the Ark Royal my first landing was number 1 wire and the second was number 4, third was a bolter so I diverted ashore!

If anyone wants I can knock my XML gauge into respectable shape and put it somewhere for download.


:wavey:

Hi SkippyBing,

Very Cool, You are correct, just did another test with the mini Mission I did put her down between 1 & 2, got Wire 2, Very cool, means you can base rewards and actions off the wire landings.

Fun Stuff !!

Thanks,

:ernae::ernae:

[noshadez]

New problem-- My 3rd party aircraft's gear goes below the deck as it is launching..The Accel F-18 does not do this..I have tried all sorts of aircraft cfg edits-even copying the entire accel air and FDs into this one and no go..alo tried elevating the cat attach points--no go..could be that the aircraft modeler (Must) have a launch bar in the model? Just checking to see if any of you guys are testing 3rd party aircraft using launch assistance and if so does the plane stay on deck?

[noshadez]

Ok I think figured this one out.. It has to do with the Launch assistance code you add to your 3rd party aircraftc CFG..I made an edit in it and now my 3rd party F18 launches off without the wheels sinking below the deck..
Here is the launch assistance code I found online

[launch_assistance]
launch_bar_pivot = 5.0, 0.0, -1.0
launch_bar_lug = 5.0, 0.0, -4.5

And here is my edit I made
[launch_assistance]
launch_bar_pivot = -8.0, 0.0, -1.0
launch_bar_lug = 5.0, 0.0, -4.5

as you can see it is the first number value I changed--launch_bar_pivot = 5.0, 0.0, -1.0 to launch_bar_pivot = -8.0, 0.0, -1.0
I changed 5.0 to -8.0 and now my 3rd party plane launches without its wheels sinking through the deck..just passing this on for the next myriad of problems if it helps anyone else

[michael davies]

I've noticed something similar with the freeware T-45, it sits too low on the deck most of the time, I figured it might be my hard deck was too low, I havent yet checked the T-45 at a default land base as it might just be a plane cfg issue, having semi sorted other issues it'll be next in my list of to do things.

Best

Michael

[sparouty]

Hi everybody!
You worked hard during I slept! :)

SkippyBing, your gauge will be very usefull and, out of modeling considerations, it's always interesting to know which cable you've caught. BTW is it possible to play the coresponding acceleration LSO voice file (files using by Acceleration Carrier missions)?

For my FLOLS trailer and in order to facilitate tests, I was using slew mode to put the plane close to the deck and then, go back to normal mode for catching the wire... i think it's a quicker way to test each cable... (no navy pilot skill mandatory :) )

Regarding Shuttle question, until last Friday, I had only one catapult working so I didn't wonder for shuttle 2-4 :whistle:
But I see 2 possibilities:
1) Shuttle feature is not really availiable (the reason why it is not coded in default carrier or mentioned in the SDK)
or
2) There is only one shuttle animation and FSX choose the one positioned between start and end points of the fired cat...

I don't know why but number 1 looks like the more credible one :)

noshadez, I have had also such problems with some planes when trapping... The clue was the same : editing the hook position and contact points...

Regards,
Sylvain

[EgoR64]

Hi everybody!

BTW is it possible to play the coresponding acceleration LSO voice file (files using by Acceleration Carrier missions)?

Regards,
Sylvain
Hi,

Yes, in a Mission you can use a Property trigger and creating a Condition using Simvar.CableCaughtByTailhook. when the bird catches a Cable you can fire off a Event or Multiple events including a Dialog Action or One Shot Sound Action.
</SIMMISSION.PROPERTYTRIGGER>

[SkippyBing]

Cool, I'll smarten up the cable gauge today (it's currently part of my general purpose testing gauge) and upload it somewhere. I don't think I can get the gauge to play the LSO voice files as there's no way of getting an XML gauge to do sound, it'd have to be part of a mission.

[SkippyBing]

Wire gauge version 1.0. You'll have to change the txt file extension to XML. Currently it'll tell you which wire you caught, there are also lines to tell you the speed and rate of descent at touchdown, but at the moment I haven't finished the code to freeze them properly, hopefully tomorrow!
I tried getting it to display which cat you're attached to but none of the variables for that seemed to work?!

Use at your own risk etc, either place in your gauges folder or the aircraft's panel folder and edit the panel.cfg accordingly.

[EgoR64]

:wavey:

Sweet, Thanks SkippyBing, Will give her go, Awsome !!

Ohh, Someone told me today that catching Wire-3 is the best, I always thought it was Wire-1. Must change me Awards for the 3rd Wire !!

:ernae::ernae::ernae:

[sparouty]

Many thanks SkippyBing!!
Unfortunately I need to go back to NAS Meridian to practise more seriously:whistle:

I wonder if LSO voice should be played via Doug Dawson's RCB_COP3_Sound.gau? I had a rapid look to COP3 xml gauges which play some sounds (sonic boom, cable catch, etc.), but xml code is not really something I'm used to read/understand :kilroy:

EgoR64, I think wire-3 is better than wire-1 because it give you a higher safety margin above the ramp. The hook to ramp clearance is taking account "flying skill" and deck motion (it's about 9ft with US carrier).

Regards,
Sylvain

EDIT : a quick anecdote about arresting gear.
French Carrier C.deGaulle has only 3 wires, and each of them has a nickname:
Wire#1 is called Athena, because you have to be a warrior to catch it
Wire#2 is called Aphrodite, because it's the most attractive for every pilots
Wire#3 is called Andromeda, wire of the last chance (saved from a sea monster by Perseus at the very last moment) :)

(see for pictures here :http://www.netmarine.net/g/dossiers/appontages/index.htm)

[EgoR64]

:wavey:

Thanks for the Info, a Nice Gentlemen tuned me into some Good Documents on Carrier Ops, you may find helpful. My Car ops Mission was more fun then actually replicating true Carriier Operations, but to follow correct procedures may be fun for future top gunners ->

http://www.vaw120.navy.mil/NATOPS/UE_Instructions/LSO%20NATOPS.pdf

http://www.vaw120.navy.mil/NATOPS/UE_Instructions/CVnatops2007wIC33.pdf

http://safetycenter.navy.mil/MEDIA/approach/spotlight/VAW-117.htm

:ernae::ernae:

[michael davies]

Cheers, much appreciated, very usefull testing tool :applause:.

Kindest

Michael


Wire gauge version 1.0. You'll have to change the txt file extension to XML. Currently it'll tell you which wire you caught, there are also lines to tell you the speed and rate of descent at touchdown, but at the moment I haven't finished the code to freeze them properly, hopefully tomorrow!
I tried getting it to display which cat you're attached to but none of the variables for that seemed to work?!

Use at your own risk etc, either place in your gauges folder or the aircraft's panel folder and edit the panel.cfg accordingly.

[SkippyBing]

Update to the gauge, it now displays your speed and sink rate at touchdown until you catch another wire. Just download, rename to .xml and paste over the original file.

[rich byrne]

Noshadez, awesome detective work! I've finally managed to get the second cat on the Ark to work now!



Hey SkippyBing, will you be releasing this as an update? Cheers,

[SkippyBing]

Rich,
Yes, at the moment we're doing a bit of work to brink the textures down to slightly more sensible levels (21 from 50) as we really were learning as we went when we made the model for FS9. There'll also be a few new routes as I'm trying to move my shipping away from Gib as it's where I do all my testing and it was getting a bit crowded!

[rich byrne]

great news, thanks very much! Will keep an eye out for it.

[fliger747]

"OK 3 Wire"... Navy passes are graded hard indeed. A friend and fellow pilot who did a tour or two as an LSO only gave out and ever recieved a couple of those. To get the OK part, probably you also had to have some emergency going on plus the perfect pass. An example quoted was an engine out landing at night in an S3.....

Cheers: T.

[noshadez]

For catapult steam, I add for each catapult, 5 combined attached points: Each objects have fx_Steam_Catapult attached effect and a visibility property (cf attached screenshot).

Thanks Sylvain..this is the next thing to do on my carrier.. so each cat takes 5 spread out attachpts with viz properties? Sounds like a mad headache 4x5= 20 attachpts..at the end of this Im gonna hate cats and get me a doghttp://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon10.gif

[noshadez]

Been a while on this but time now to git it did..ThankX Sylvain for the attach code pic for the steams..All 4 of mine work with 5 attachpts each..I guess I hit it lucky or there is an viz on whatever cat you are on as the steamys only shot out of whatever cat I launched from:woot:

[Sideshow]

Some great looking carriers here!


Update to the gauge, it now displays your speed and sink rate at touchdown until you catch another wire. Just download, rename to .xml and paste over the original file.

I was wondering if someone could explain to me how to add SkippyBing’s wire caught gauge mentioned on the previous page to any aircraft. My intention would be to have it in a separate popup panel similar to the default GPS.

I was trying to add it to Dino’s T-45 on the weekend to help with my carrier landing practice but didn’t have any success.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

[SkippyBing]

Sideshow,

This is how I did it, although there are probably better ways I was in a rush and it works!

Make a new folder in the Boeing_T45C\Panel folder call it 'Gauge' and place the bmp and xml files in there (you have to change WireCaught.txt to WireCaught.xml, it's the only way I could upload it).

Next, open Panel.cfg in the text editor of your choice and make these changes:

[Window Titles]
Window00=Main panel
Window01=Radio Stack
Window02=GPS
Window03=Minipanel
Window04=Wire Gauge <-----Add this

Add all of the following at the appropriate point:

[Window04]
size_mm=170,64
windowsize_ratio=1.0
window_pos= 4
position=8
visible=0
ident=10001

gauge00=Gauge!WireCaught.xml, 0, 0,170,64


You should now be able to launch the gauge as a pop up panel, either through the View menu or by pressing Shift + 5.
By following the same basic procedure you can add it to pretty much any aircraft you just need to make Window04 the next number in sequence.

[wilycoyote4]

.........place the bmp and xml files in there

What bmp please? I don't have a bmp? Must be asleep in class.

[SkippyBing]

Ahh, there was one attached to the original message, it may have gone missing! Hmm can't seem to get it to upload at the moment.
You just need a bmp 340 x 128 pixels called WireCaught.bmp

[wilycoyote4]

Ahh, there was one attached to the original message, it may have gone missing! Hmm can't seem to get it to upload at the moment.
You just need a bmp 340 x 128 pixels called WireCaught.bmp

The SOH server crash has made some uploads difficult. I'll make a bmp. I think I can. Thanks:ernae:

[michael davies]

Blatant plug, finally got round to compiling bith vessels to FSx.

Helldiver are you paying attention !, you have PM to driveable versions of these, CV-10 in WWII and CV-32 in Korea, enjoy !

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/files/Clipboard01.jpg
Getting up steam


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/files/Clipboard02.jpg
Flank speed


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/files/Clipboard04.jpg
Deck view aft at flank speed

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/files/Clipboard05.jpg
Vultures row

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/files/Clipboard06.jpg
Mast top


There are three camera views so far, let me know of any more views you want and I'll add them, so far its, flying bridge, deck view aft, starboard stern chase. Vultures row and Mast top are not in the current set up.

I can add a basic F9F Panther as deck clutter to CV-32 if your PC can handle the frame drop ?. Sorry there not painted yet, trying as best I can for ya.

Kindest

Michael

[wilycoyote4]

Golly Moses, thank goodyness, even 40mm quads, wazza-wazza lookee, meesa needa new undies, :ernae: well done :ernae: I can feel the deck rolling now

[michael davies]

Rolling deck is something I am looking into, should be easy enough with a tick18 animation, hard part is getting it sort of regular but not so regular it feels and looks stale and contrived.

Quads, 20mm and dual 5", all standing by for action ! :), just need the directors and mag racks to complete the weapons division.

Best

Michael


Golly Moses, thank goodyness, even 40mm quads, wazza-wazza lookee, meesa needa new undies, :ernae: well done :ernae: I can feel the deck rolling now

[wilycoyote4]

One step at a time will get it done. Dino just made a progress report on the Tomcat. http://indiafoxtecho.blogspot.com/2009/04/tomcat-update-carrier-trials-and.html so it is getting closer. The T-45C he has released in version 1.51 just a few days ago shows more improvements (I've flying the dickens out f it). :ernae: I'm checking the Goshawk and can trap most of the passes. It seems to me that the Goshawk demands full flaps, gear and hook down, of course, and air speed brakes out with throttle about half to have 100 KIAS and green AoA.

I can't seem to get the wireCaught gauge to work. I'm in Vista.

[crashaz]

WoW!!

Hmm we dont have the faint button back yet... so I guess I am going to have to change my underwear too! ROFL!


You are da master of ship building... I humbly bow!
:ernae:

[sparouty]

Hi!
It's already amazing and textures are missing!! After painting job it will be..(I've got no word for that...even in French :) )

I made some tests with pitching animation on my carrier, it seems that Acceleration Arresting gear works badly when the deck is moving like that... Is anyone test it with the same conclusion?

Keep going Michael, it's so great!!:applause:
Regards
Sylvain

[noddy]

I think the term you are looking for is the D B's.

[Shylock]

Wow............ sorry but that's all I can say. I'm left speechless. :ernae:

[Sideshow]

Sideshow,

This is how I did it, although there are probably better ways I was in a rush and it works!

Make a new folder in the Boeing_T45C\Panel folder call it 'Gauge' and place the bmp and xml files in there (you have to change WireCaught.txt to WireCaught.xml, it's the only way I could upload it).

Next, open Panel.cfg in the text editor of your choice and make these changes:

[Window Titles]
Window00=Main panel
Window01=Radio Stack
Window02=GPS
Window03=Minipanel
Window04=Wire Gauge <-----Add this

Add all of the following at the appropriate point:

[Window04]
size_mm=170,64
windowsize_ratio=1.0
window_pos= 4
position=8
visible=0
ident=10001

gauge00=Gauge!WireCaught.xml, 0, 0,170,64


You should now be able to launch the gauge as a pop up panel, either through the View menu or by pressing Shift + 5.
By following the same basic procedure you can add it to pretty much any aircraft you just need to make Window04 the next number in sequence.

Thanks SkippyBing, your description worked perfectly. It's a very useful tool.


Michael, that looks absolutely fantatsic!

[Collin]

Smashing stuff Michael.

With the animations possible in fsx do you think you might be able to get the crash barriers working?

regards Collin:ernae:

[wilycoyote4]

sideshow, I used those instructions, will keep checking.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[SkippyBing]

With the animations possible in fsx do you think you might be able to get the crash barriers working?You can have crash barriers that raise and lower, I managed to tie it into the state of the aircraft's tailhook, although you have to add a gauge to convert that to a custom variable. The only problem I've had is that you don't seem to be able to have crash detection on moving parts, I've tried attaching platforms to them but no joy which is a bit of a pain. The video below shows the moving barriers in the last few seconds.

jm0NCSriLSM

Wiley,
I don't have Vista so I'm not sure why it's not working for you, although when I tried adding the gauge to an aircraft in the Windows 7 beta I had a few problems. It didn't seem to register the changes I was making to the panel.cfg which I think may have had something to do with the UAC. In the end I edited the file in XP and then booted into 7 to get it to work!

[Collin]

You can have crash barriers that raise and lower, I managed to tie it into the state of the aircraft's tailhook, although you have to add a gauge to convert that to a custom variable. The only problem I've had is that you don't seem to be able to have crash detection on moving parts, I've tried attaching platforms to them but no joy which is a bit of a pain. The video below shows the moving barriers in the last few seconds.



I was hoping that you could...I have put animated crash barriers on the Colossus class (CFS2), but I couldn't get it to link and work with the players aircraft, so I'm still waiting for some bright spark to come up with an answer.

regards Collin:ernae:

[wilycoyote4]

Wiley,
I don't have Vista so I'm not sure why it's not working for you, although when I tried adding the gauge to an aircraft in the Windows 7 beta I had a few problems. It didn't seem to register the changes I was making to the panel.cfg which I think may have had something to do with the UAC. In the end I edited the file in XP and then booted into 7 to get it to work!

I'll check this later today, thanks, seems a good idea.

[Sideshow]

I’m using Vista Ultimate x64. Which version of the gauge are you using? I’m using the second version that also gives you a readout of your airspeed and decent rate when you catch the wire.

[wilycoyote4]

I’m using Vista Ultimate x64. Which version of the gauge are you using? I’m using the second version that also gives you a readout of your airspeed and decent rate when you catch the wire.

I have the 2nd gauge 4.51kb. I get a display of the bmp I made in the lower right section of the VC. It is all black with no data readout. I'm checking again tonight. There's an answer and it will be ok later. Can't post any screenys lately. I'd like to see a screeny from other users.

Thanks.

[Sideshow]

This is what the gauge looks like on my system.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5299/gaugem.jpg

If you have followed SkippyBings instructions I can't see why it won't work. The only thing I would recommend is ensuring that the file extension is .xml and not .xml.txt
I have occasionally accidently saved text files without realising i hadn't properly changed the extension.

[wilycoyote4]

...............would recommend is ensuring that the file extension is .xml and not .xml.txt
I have occasionally accidently saved text files without realising i hadn't properly changed the extension.

That appears to be my problem. I have changed a txt file to xml in the past but why I cannot do it now has me stumped but I'll keep at it. I think the gauge is useful for other aircraft so I hope I succeed, lol.

[Sideshow]

open the file WireCaught.txt in notepad.

choose File --> Save as...

In the the window that pops up add .xml to the end of the file name. It should look like this.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/1286/savew.jpg

Choose "All Files" from the Save as type dropdown menu.

Hit save.

That should do it.

[wilycoyote4]

thanks sideshow, that did it. My memory does recall the method. I've made a note in case my recall takes another vacation. Wish the original bmp was up for copying. :ernae:

[N332DW]

link to wirecaught txt files on page 7 currently dead - hope they return as the attachment restore gets completed ... :(

[SkippyBing]

bmp below

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/SkippyBing/WireCaught.jpg

Trying to attach the xml code, but it's a but tricky!

<simbase.document>
</simbase.document><element id="Display Text"><gaugetext id="GaugeText">
</gaugetext></element>

[SkippyBing]

Bitmap and xml code available at the link below.

http://z13.invisionfree.com/Flying_Stations/index.php?showtopic=19&st=0#entry1940305

[michael davies]

Finally unraveled all the variations to enable a start to be made on the last of the three Essex projects, early days yet.

Best

Michael

[crashaz]

Wow! Looking great Michael!! Can't wait to see this baby make her shakedown cruise!!:applause::applause:

[navychief8]

Between Javier's Nimitz and now this beauty, all I can say is thanks for your hard work and dedication to the flightsim world. Bravo Zulu.:applause:

[fliger747]

The perfect is the enemy of the good, looking forward to actually seeing her hit the waves!

Cheers: T.

[crashaz]

Hopefully the virtual Chinese and virtual Vietnamese won't be too alarmed with the sudden influx of tons of USN carriers hitting the virtual South China Seas.

Here we come Yankee Station!!:applause:

BTW.. we better go renew our lease with the virtual Philippines for use of Subic Bay. :icon_lol:

[navychief8]

Nothing like a deck full of Skyraiders, Skyhawks and Crusaders ready to go Feet Dry.:pop4:

[michael davies]

The devil is in the detail, three types of hurricane bow, two types of deck shape and three types of elevator location and shape, let alone sponsons and other minor detail, fourteen vessels break down into 5 sub classes, only six served in Vietnam as attack carriers.

The overall shape is now finalised so detail work can begin, I figured the conversion might be a little problematical, but not this complex and it'll be months before it even gets close to others work I'm afraid.

Hard to believe they landed whales on this tiny deck !

Best

Michael

[Motormouse]

Hard to believe they landed whales on this tiny deck !

Best

Michael

Hello from my temporary 'ome in the colonies....
the 'Ark' wasn't exactly huge either, and 63,000lb of Buccaneer
worked off that one.....there's a piccie about somewhere of the last
cruise with 'Ark' parked alongside Nimitz...yoo hoo, Skippy Bing..
can you oblige, I'm not able to find it (the piccie) right now..

Great stuff though....makes one appreciate the skills of those 'who can'
with 3ds/max I must say.


ttfn

Pete

[Thrawn]

Looks awesome. I´ve always loved the Essex angle deck carriers. It's amazing how short was the runway, a challenge indeed!!

Javier

[Bone]

Keep it going, Michael, it's looking great. This is a carrier class FSX really needs.

[Z-AZ1USN]

Didn't F-4s only appear on Forrestals (and larger), because they were too big and heavy for the older carriers?

They were on the MidWay class "Bat barges" as well. I know this as I served 24 years (viet-vet) member of the Tonkin gulf Yacht club.
I was on the Uss Ranger, Uss Hancock, Uss Bon Homme Richard, And
The Forrestal (Uss Zippo). The Class 27C carrier only had 2 Catapults.
The Corral Sea was a 3 catapult bat barge. Funny thing.. the A-3 (Whale)
was much bigger plane yet we could launch and recover the A-3 from the
Uss Hancock CV-19. The tail folded, the wings folded, so it could go into the hange bay. :USA-flag:

[michael davies]

Hello from my temporary 'ome in the colonies....
the 'Ark' wasn't exactly huge either, and 63,000lb of Buccaneer
worked off that one.....there's a piccie about somewhere of the last
cruise with 'Ark' parked alongside Nimitz...yoo hoo, Skippy Bing..
can you oblige, I'm not able to find it (the piccie) right now..

Great stuff though....makes one appreciate the skills of those 'who can'
with 3ds/max I must say.


ttfn

Pete

Pete, re Buccaneer, this is correct, and in a somewhat more than neccesary explanatory dialogue I'll expand :). It is more than just the aircraft weight alone, its the speed and sink rate, the Phantom isnt much larger than the Buccaneer and certainly smaller than the Whale but its higher approach speed and sink rate precludes it from Essex carrier operations, yet possible from the 'Ark', probably because of our initial preference for steel decks from WWII as opposed to the American preference for wood.

The highest weight impact (from my notes) aircraft for the respective classes are below,

Essex, A-3 Skywarrior
Midway, F-4 Phantom
Forrestal onwards, RA-5 Vigilante.

The Vigilante was only suppased when the F-14 arrived and still (F-14
) holds the record for the highest impact threshold of all USN carrier aircraft that I'm aware of.

The more modern FA-18 is much kinder to the deck and was deployed to all carriers then in service, which goes back the the Midway class and I think some may have practiced on the Essex class trainer USS Lexington, but I dont have photographic proof to hand, just a recollection of images somewhere.

On a personal note, I'm kinda ticked off that some personal favourite aircraft are precluded from the Essex carriers, but thats history and it is our legacy to ensure its written and told correctly for the future, so y'all Rhino drivers are going to have to find something bigger to beat up with your cats and traps :).

Best

Michael

[michael davies]

They were on the MidWay class "Bat barges" as well. I know this as I served 24 years (viet-vet) member of the Tonkin gulf Yacht club.
I was on the Uss Ranger, Uss Hancock, Uss Bon Homme Richard, And
The Forrestal (Uss Zippo). The Class 27C carrier only had 2 Catapults.
The Corral Sea was a 3 catapult bat barge. Funny thing.. the A-3 (Whale)
was much bigger plane yet we could launch and recover the A-3 from the
Uss Hancock CV-19. The tail folded, the wings folded, so it could go into the hange bay. :USA-flag:

Long time since I've heard Forrestal called the USS Zippo, I'm sure one of the Essex's had a similar conflagration in the Gulf of Tonkin too, will have to look that up.

Anyway, eyes down and back the the grind stone :).

Best

Michael

[wilycoyote4]

I think there is an A-4 in development? A-4G perhaps? Anyone?
Anyway, it is a small simple aircraft.

A history in that era of jets on carriers plus props.

[michael davies]

No Golfs on Essex Tonkin deployments from my records, Bravos and Charlies and just one very rare deployment with A-7Bs.

I have one deployment in mind for statics its one of the more interesting spreads I could find.

Sluff
Scooter
Whale
Six shooter
Stoof
Seasprite
Seaking

The other rare one is the single deployment of Demons which gives

Demons
Six shooter
Spad
Scooter
Whale
Stoof
Seasprite

The rest of the deployments fall into the general run of the mill mixes.

Best

Michael



I think there is an A-4 in development? A-4G perhaps? Anyone?
Anyway, it is a small simple aircraft.

A history in that era of jets on carriers plus props.

[Prowler1111]

I think there is an A-4 in development? A-4G perhaps? Anyone?
Anyway, it is a small simple aircraft.

A history in that era of jets on carriers plus props.
..you rang?....:icon_lol:
Already on schedule....but you got to be patient:173go1:

Prowler

[wilycoyote4]

Scooter----The early A-4 Skyhawk, I think. The A-4G is much later, I think, and bigger. So many nicknames, so little time, lol.

[Prowler1111]

..you know..in some circles i´m known as Mr. Skyhawk..:icon_lol::icon_lol:

Prowler

[crashaz]

Hmm [checks back of his T-shirt] ... yep he sure is!!:ernae:

[ColoKent]

...an excellent S-2 and C-1 are "musts" for this baby!

Kent

[deathfromafar]

I'll love flying my Sader on and off this baby when it is ready! Prowler, I will be waiting to buy those for sure! I bought your Vol 2 way back and I think it was one of my first couple of paywares. Still fly em 9r! :icon29:

[fliger747]

To clear up a possible misunderstanding, all of the Essex Carriers serving in the 60's had by then the wood decking replaced with steel. I am always amazed that even with bulging, the Essex carriers remained upright with all the added topweight!

[michael davies]

Tom,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

I don’t think all of the deck was replaced with steel ?, I've certainly got pictures of modified Essex's with wooden decks and Crusaders etc.<o:p></o:p>

Ticonderoga certainly had wooden decks or part wooden decks through to the mid 60's after her last SCB conversion, latest I can find wooden decks on the Tico is 1964, mostly around the bridge and bow area, a picture from 1969 shows it has been steel plated but there were no major yard fits in that period that I'm aware of, SCB and FRAM were completed long before.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Lexington was also part wood in 61 but all steel by 1970.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The wooden deck was not always removed before the steel was added, in many cases it was simply laid on top, especially the thinner areas.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Checking my notes, there appears to be a large area behind the bridge next to the #3 elevator that was never steel covered, specifications are 3/32" polyurethane clad hickory wood with a layer of anti slip paint on top, possibly giving an illusion of uniformity with the rest of the deck, but wood underneath none the less. This area was replanked on Lexington as late as 1976 and was again found rotten later when preserved, whether other carriers retained this covered planked area I've yet to ascertain but it seems likely as the drawing is generic and not vessel specific.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Still, for simplicity we'll say the decks looked all steel from 1970 onwards LOL. Visually that is correct, the only give away was the lack of sunken tie down points, actually that might be the easiest way to check, steel decks had the modern circular sunken tie down points, wooden would have had the original slotted steel strips.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
ahh the joys of minutiae LOL

Best

Michael


To clear up a possible misunderstanding, all of the Essex Carriers serving in the 60's had by then the wood decking replaced with steel. I am always amazed that even with bulging, the Essex carriers remained upright with all the added topweight!

[fliger747]

I spent some time on Bonni'e Dick and Oriskany in the late 60's and do not recall any wood remaining. The Evil Eye, in NY certainly has no wood either. I have a friend who was a Crusaider driver and will have to see if I can get ahold of him. Willy was on the Lex, so might have some input there. One class becomes at least "eight" in time....

Cheers: T.

[wilycoyote4]

Using the "Wayback Machine" I recall a visit to a Navy Shipyard in the San Francisco Bay Area where a wooden deck carrier was being refitted, if that's the term, and I seem to think it was the Boxer --???? This was about 1955. I was about 10 years old. I walked on the wooden flight deck which I remember best. The wood wasn't toothpicks but hefty slabs of thick wood with round bolt heads if I recall rightly. The deck was empty. Everywhere else below were construction equipment and materials.

[michael davies]

:), funny you should mention Bonnie Dick, just got home from work and found this (attached), its from the bow area, some Essex carriers had the area between the cats left planked for quite some time, you can see the planks in the image, there is no date for the photo, however thats an A-4E from VA-94, the tail code is NF which is CVW-5 who deployed to Bonnie Dick in the Gulf of Tonkin between 27th Jan and 10th Oct 1968.

The A-4E modex is 4xx and VA-94 were assigned the air wing 4th Sqn or second attack Sqn which tallies with the 4xx modex.

VA-94 deployed again on Bonnie Dick from 18th Mar to 29th Oct 1969 and again from 2nd April to 20th Oct 1970, again as the 4th Sqn and 4xx modex and again as CVW-5 tail code NF.

VA-94 did not deploy again until 1971, this time aboard USS Coral Sea and after they had changed to A-7Es.

Previous to the above, VA-94 deployed to Hancock in 1967, again 4th Sqn and tail code NF but with A-4Cs, all prior deployments were A-4Cs.

The data is collected from the Governmental released deployment documents for carriers in Vietnam. Unless the data is incorrect we have three years to choose from for the first image, 1968-70.

The second three images are from Bonnie Dick and Oriskany in the Vietnam war.

The F-8 of VF-111 sundowners is aboard USS Oriskany and is from the CVW-16 deployment of 16th Jun 67 to 31st Jan 68

The deck view is from Bonnie Dick and is labeled as crew from EA-1F VAW-13 DET 1 return from a mission, that places the photo as CVW-19 deployment to Bonnie Dick from 21st Apr 65 to 13th Jan 66, a little earlier than the previous images.

The final image shows a RF-8A landing aboard Bonnie Dick and is from the same deployment as the EA-1F crew image, the shows the large wooden area abeam and behind the bridge structure, right out to the hardened 25lb panels under the RF-8A.

I don't want to ruffle feathers with those who have stood on these hallowed decks or get into I'm more right than you contest, I want the model historically correct for the deployment I envisage and matches the statics, this includes aircraft deployed, Modex, serials, Sqns, vessel antenna, weapons and other sundries that may have changed over time, including decks and their surfaces.

But, I can only go with the written and pictorial data collected over the years, I'm sure they were all steel in time, and yes I'm fully aware that modern historical museum pieces rarely represent their history accurately, my summation is based on reference material from my chosen period of interest, 1965-1975. Wooden remains to the deck are present on many Essex carriers through to about 1964-65, after that they gradually became more covered in steel, when and where the last one was I haven't yet deduced, 67 or 68 is as late as I can pictorially prove right now, maybe as late as 1970 on Bonnie Dick ?.

Large copies of all the images can be found here
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/023105.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/Image1.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/Image2.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/Image3.jpg

Hope that helps....grabs nomex suit and crawls back into hole.

Best

Michael




I spent some time on Bonni'e Dick and Oriskany in the late 60's and do not recall any wood remaining. The Evil Eye, in NY certainly has no wood either. I have a friend who was a Crusaider driver and will have to see if I can get ahold of him. Willy was on the Lex, so might have some input there. One class becomes at least "eight" in time....

Cheers: T.

[michael davies]

One final set of images, the first two are dated as 1976 and show the wood replacement process being carried out on USS Lexington.

The first view shows the polyuthene covered part of the deck, the landing zone is to the right, the view looks aft, you can just see the 25lb slabs at right of image, the wood extended into the landing area but not where the main impact occured.

The second image shows the process of laying the new planks, the view looks starboard from the landing area, bridge to left, stern to right.

The third image is from the US department of defense photo collection and dated 10/24/1985 from USS Lexington and shows she retained the wooden deck between the cats until at least this date.

Big pictures here
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/Image4.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/Image5.jpg
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mickoo/Images%20Ships/DN-ST-86-00545.JPEG

Best

Michael

[Navy Chief]

Hmm [checks back of his T-shirt] ... yep he sure is!!:ernae:

Yep, I too, have the same T-shirt; although it is definitely faded now. Been there, done that, enjoyed the convention.

Go RAZBAM.

NC

[VCN-1]

I have a piece of wood from the flight deck of the Lexington when she was decommissioned.

When I made my visits to her in 1969 she had her wooden deck. I have lost most of my pictures I took after many moves.

VCN-1

[Bone]

The Lad's are ready.

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj299/theBone11/2-4.jpg

[Ian Warren]

Hells , I love following this thread not only for Michael,s superb ESSEX but also for the extra detail , the history and many that i have not seen photos . :engel016:

[fliger747]

Always loved the Crusader. My friend Carl Mosslinger who chezhed me out as Captain in the 747-400 made a number of runs on the famous Than Hoa bridge in one.

Cheers: T.

[michael davies]

Ohhh I like that one, where and who please ?, is it FSx native ?, I do have plans for one to begin 'very' shortly as well as a stoof, other than Dinos work and the default Hornet I dont think there much modern USN stuff that is FSx accel ready ?.

Best

Michael


The Lad's are ready.

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj299/theBone11/2-4.jpg

[sparouty]

Hi Michael!


Ohhh I like that one, where and who please ?, is it FSx native ?, I do have plans for one to begin 'very' shortly as well as a stoof, other than Dinos work and the default Hornet...

An FSX/Accel Crusader?? Yes please!!:jump:
I know at least two carriers which should be more attractive with Crus on her deck:bump:

Regards,
Sylvain

[Bone]

Ohhh I like that one, where and who please ?, is it FSx native ?, I do have plans for one to begin 'very' shortly as well as a stoof, other than Dinos work and the default Hornet I dont think there much modern USN stuff that is FSx accel ready ?.

Best

Michael

It's the Alphasim FS9 Crusader, but it ports over nicely with good fps.

You can get a great FS9 F-8 freebie from simviation, it ports really nice, also.

Steve

[michael davies]

Alphasim....ahh ok :) looks nice but I'll pass, personal reasons etc.

I'll look for the simviation one, that'll have to suffice for the immediate future to get the feel of Essex class landings etc.

Thanks for the info.

Best

Michael


It's the Alphasim FS9 Crusader, but it ports over nicely with good fps.

You can get a great FS9 F-8 freebie from simviation, it ports really nice, also.

Steve

[crashaz]

Hells , I love following this thread not only for Michael,s superb ESSEX but also for the extra detail , the history and many that i have not seen photos . :engel016:

Hehehe the minutiae that Michael has been referring too.

We are really lucky to have Michael and Javier building out these wonderful carriers. Their attention to small details have their models standing second to none in the payware community.

Go Navy!!:applause:

[Bone]

Hehehe the minutiae that Michael has been referring too.

We are really lucky to have Michael and Javier building out these wonderful carriers. Their attention to small details have their models standing second to none in the payware community.

Go Navy!!:applause:

I'll second that thought.

I'd like to think that one day I can learn how to do some of this stuff and contribute to the community, but the reality is I just don't have the time to even TRY to acquire the skill.

[crashaz]

It truly takes a lot of work. I have been learning for 10 years! Everyone thinks about the modeling.... but all the research behind it, blueprints, configuration, deployments etc..

I have Coral Sea sitting in the drydock right now about 85% complete. Hopefully I can get back to it soon. This has given me a itch to scratch... just have not had the time with all the hustling I am doing in this economy.

[Bone]

I hear ya, loud and clear. The Coral Sea would go well in the FS Navy, keep scratchin' that itch.

[spatialpro]

I apologise if this has been covered elsewhere, but what did you use to get these to fly in formation??

Any pointers welcome.

Many thanks

Andy


The Lad's are ready.

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj299/theBone11/2-4.jpg

[Bone]

I used FSrecorder.


http://www.fs-recorder.net/

[michael davies]

Just some little update renders, still a long way to go with the details.

Best

Michael

[vet123]

Oh my my, this is going to be great too :ernae:

Regards, Rich

[BOOM]

It looks wonderful Michael:applause:

[Z-AZ1USN]

I think a 27 Charlie Carrier is a capitol idea. Uss Hancock, or the USS
Bon Homme Richard, or the Oriskiny "AKA Crispy O"

I did my Viet Nam time on the Bonnie Dick and the Hancock with F-8C
Mig Killing Crusaders ala VF-24 as an Ordie......:USA-flag:

I retired with 24 years in, been retired 22 years now.

[wilycoyote4]

:applause::ernae::icon29:

[michael davies]

Watch this space, low poly static Crusader soon rendered....naked....with out paint LOL.

VF-24 ehh :), checker tails ?, kewl colors.

As far as I can tell there was only four staple attack 27C carriers in Vietnam

Oriskany 10 tours
Bonnie Dick 6 tours
Hancock 9 tours
Tico 5 tours + 2 CVS ( anti sub )

Two others did one tour as CVA

Intrepid 1 tour + 2 CVS but not AS aircraft, oddly attack aircraft but still CVS not CVA.
Shangri La 1 tour

The others served only as Anti sub tours with helos and Stoofs.

The model I opted for are the three odd balls with the different elevator layout, Intrepid, Tico, Hancock, all three are very similar until Intrepid converted to CVS, so I'll probably opt for either Hancock or Tico, Bonnie Dick and Oriskany would require some large changes to the ship model to be authentic.

I've still yet to go through all the color plates for each Sqn and pick the right ones, that alone is a mine field in its self LOL.

Thanks for the comments, always pleased to hear from Vets who deployed, adds that personal touch...I think so any way.

Best

Michael




I think a 27 Charlie Carrier is a capitol idea. Uss Hancock, or the USS
Bon Homme Richard, or the Oriskiny "AKA Crispy O"

I did my Viet Nam time on the Bonnie Dick and the Hancock with F-8C
Mig Killing Crusaders ala VF-24 as an Ordie......:USA-flag:

I retired with 24 years in, been retired 22 years now.

[michael davies]

Addendum, hmm something not feeling right here ?, few little bits to add and an attempt to lower the poly count a little more, looks like a Crusader but doesnt yet 'feel' like a Crusader....will sleep on it for a few days, perhaps too close and too intense a modeling session to see the wood clearly from the trees :).

Best

Michael

[Bone]

They look like Crusaders to me, just need a little paint.

[martinsd]

Would realy like to see some of the Mid-Sixty and seventy carriers that you can land on and take off

[Motormouse]

could be a hairy proposition if this vid is anything to go by

----> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ef_1238364121

ttfn

Pete

[dominikx]

When it be in water ;)

[expat]

What he said! :icon_lol:

Hey Michael, is this one permanently in dry dock?!

Regards,

expat

[michael davies]

What he said! :icon_lol:

Hey Michael, is this one permanently in dry dock?!

Regards,

expat

Not permanently, just waiting for that interest bubbles cyclic return :), along with the straight deck ones.

[fliger747]

I did much of the testing of Milton's STOOF series on the straight deck Valley Forge, thanks!

Wing tip clearance a bit tight, Bonnie Dick or the like would be nice indeed!

Cheers. T

[expat]

Where did you find the Valley Forge?

[fliger747]

The honourable Mr Davies produced both the straight deck Valley Forge and one of the other WWII ships (Bunker Hill?) quite some time ago. Whether it still exists here at SOH I have no idea.

T

[expat]

Hmmmm . . thought that was a long while ago but was the Essex and Leyte ?????

[fliger747]

Could have been Essex, don't remember as the Valley Forge worked fine but I could never get the "Essex" to show. Indeed, a couple of years ago by now, as was the start of this thread.

Cheers: T

[Roadburner440]

Would be interesting to see these carriers. Especially when Ron gets done with the redo of the Scooters, and Skyraiders. Right now I have the AI Carriers pack, and some gentlemen's finely done Nimitz class carrier model. The older ones would be good as well though.

[hae5904]

Steve, why don't you use the Clemenceau package of Sparouty? Highly detailed small carrier! Highly recommended. :salute:
And not to forget....the upcoming USS Enterprise package of SDB.........

Cheers,
Hank

[crashaz]

Still not angle deck Essex's. The naval types are kinda particular to accuracy when it comes down to the decks they land on. No way Clemenceau would be mistaken for a USN flattop.

[hae5904]

Dah.....but still a nice add-on. A bit smaller than the Essex class, but they were able to operate the Crusader from them, just like the Essex class.

Hank

[TARPSBird]

A Vietnam-era SCB-27C ("27 Charlie") CVA such as Hancock or Bon Homme Richard would be a great addition to the FSX Carrier Navy. Or maybe Oriskany, which was not technically a 27 Charlie but we airdales throw her into the group anyway. All those old Essex decks were top performers and during Vietnam they met their commitments as well as or better than the big decks like Constellation or Enterprise.

[expat]

A Vietnam-era SCB-27C ("27 Charlie") CVA such as Hancock or Bon Homme Richard would be a great addition to the FSX Carrier Navy. Or maybeOriskany,Has been mentioned before that there is a very big hole here that a 27C would go a long way to fill. Also wouldn't mind a Forrestal, Coral Sea, Midway etc. We need at least one in this group to fly all those Alphasim and other Nam era birds off of!

[TARPSBird]

I made three deployments aboard Coral Sea (two during Vietnam and one during the 79-80 Iran Hostage Crisis) so yes, I'd like to eventually see the old "Coral Maru" in FSX along with that 27 Charlie. :jump:

[fliger747]

Friend of mine, now long retired flew F-8 Crusaders off the Essex Boats in the gulf of Tonkin.

Great ships, suppose I could still find my way around one.

T

[navychief8]

The person who did the Nimitz was also going to do the Midway. Have not seen him on the boards here in a long while.