PDA

View Full Version : Elevators on Carriers!



VC81_DOC_CO
06-11-2005, 12:29 PM
Hello All,
I was curious to the fact of, Will the Elevators now be operational on the carriers in the new patch? If not will we ever see that? And how about being able to repaint or renumber the carriers also for the squads whos carriers aren't represented. I know you cant have them all in there but maybe we would be able to repaint them.

VC81_DOC_CO
06-11-2005, 12:29 PM
Hello All,
I was curious to the fact of, Will the Elevators now be operational on the carriers in the new patch? If not will we ever see that? And how about being able to repaint or renumber the carriers also for the squads whos carriers aren't represented. I know you cant have them all in there but maybe we would be able to repaint them.

Choctaw111
06-11-2005, 12:37 PM
I would love to see functional evlevators! This would be so great. Anything that adds realism and immersion I would like included...

VC81_DOC_CO
06-15-2005, 03:50 PM
Please Oleg if you have time, respond.

Chuck_Older
06-15-2005, 04:11 PM
Object skins would be great and I consider it almost as weak a point in this sim as radio comms and the lack of choice therein (wouldn't it be great to be able to say "Hey look, a Zero is on your tail, flight leader, you should break now!"?) Comms are weak, weak, weak

But I don't think we'll see any cahange in the present sim for any of this. BoB is when we'll see the change, is my opinion

VT-51_Razor
06-15-2005, 05:05 PM
Doc, this was discussed a long time ago, during PF development. Apparently, the elevators were originally designed to be functional and the interior of the hangar deck is modeled I think, however it was decided to forego that feature. My guess, it is due to limitations with the AI. I'll bet that the same is true of the catapults. I mean, it's a no brainer to make them work, but what are you going to do with the AI? I believe that's the problem.

That's my story anyway, and I'm stickin' to it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

VC81_DOC_CO
07-03-2005, 12:59 PM
Thanks Razor,
But I would still like to hear from Oleg's team on this.

Tater-SW-
07-04-2005, 12:16 AM
US planes were typically embarked on deck anyway, and only broght below to let maintainance at them. IJN CVs embarked all planes below at all times, which is why they carried so few planes compared to USN CVs.

Regardless, CV ops in PF are wierd compared to RL. In RL, the timing of take off vs landing ops was pretty critical, as well as the time to spot planes forward to conduct landing ops, and spot them aft for take offs. Stowing below decks simplified on one hand, but you paid for the simplification with longer times to get a stike airborne. If you opted for a tighter TO for the strike, it meant spotting on deck first, which gets you back to the timing issues.

Another reason why a better concentration on the SWPA and CBI would have made more sense, IMO.

tater