Carrier landing

Yoganator · Post by **Yoganator** » 2007-06-15 02:54

Ok, I really think this is useful. Of course we all know that you dont land on a carrier quite like you do an airfield. Navy planes should have a hook which can be moved up or down. The way to do this is to make a secondary wep which looks like a hook. You press you secondary fire button it deploy's. Now you have a hook, but it has nothing to catch on a carrier...

Make black lines go across a carrier, doesn't even have to be attached to the carrier, code it so when you hit it, you go and stop after a bit. Then it pulls you back and you get ready to launch for another exciting patrol or bombin

.

Ironcomatose · Post by **Ironcomatose** » 2007-06-15 03:02

Another thing is that the ship they have in game now is not a carrier, Its a marine amphibious assault ship. So F18 couldnt land there to begin with IRL because its to small and there are no arresting hooks. EA got something right when they only put the F35 "Jumpjet 2" on that ship.

http://www.militarypictures.info/d/1524 ... ibious.jpg - Marine assault ship

http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Feature/gulf2.JPG - US carrier on left and british assualt ship on right(which is about the same as marines) so this is a good comparison

Yoganator · Post by **Yoganator** » 2007-06-15 03:15

Think the Devs could mabye make a US carrier? I seriously hate being corrected about that.

F-35 is taht the new JSF that the US is getting?

Ironcomatose · Post by **Ironcomatose** » 2007-06-15 03:19

Yoganator wrote:Think the Devs could mabye make a US carrier? I seriously hate being corrected about that.

F-35 is taht the new JSF that the US is getting?

Yeah the F35 or JSF. But the F35 has 3 versions. The air force, navy and marine version. The marine version is set to replace the Harrier and has VTOL. It is the only version with VTOL(vertical take off and landing).

EDIT:im all for making a US carrier. And im sure it cant be that hard considering it doesnt have to move and basically is a big building in the middle of the sea. You dont have to make an interior b/c there are no boat hatches under the carrier or anything like that. You can put it right next to the Marine assault ship in maps that call for it. It would really be bad ***. It would also hold a few helos if you would have it that way. While your at it you guys could make a cruiser and destroyer in time. B/c its unrealistic to have a lone assault ship out there.

TexLax · Post by **TexLax** » 2007-06-15 03:43

it's unneeded... the WASP is enough to use, besides, a carrier is bigger and will take up alot of room in a map.

Raniak · Post by **Raniak** » 2007-06-15 03:58

TexLax wrote:it's unneeded... the WASP is enough to use, besides, a carrier is bigger and will take up alot of room in a map.

Even if it's twice the size, it's not like it would mater anyway...

BetterDeadThanRed · Post by **BetterDeadThanRed** » 2007-06-15 04:01

With .6, I highly doubt F-18s will be used on the carriers. The new flight system makes short landings extremely difficult and I doubt the arresting hook is anything but the dirty H word.

Queue the AV-8! YAY!

Deadmonkiefart · Post by **Deadmonkiefart** » 2007-06-15 04:02

It would take a massive amount of time to model a carrier.

daranz · Post by **daranz** » 2007-06-15 06:31

Carriers also LOOK unrealistic on the kinds of maps we have. While airfields on the maps do not seem THAT unbelievable, having a carrier parked just a mile offshore, all by itself, would make maps seem that much more unrealistic. Maybe it's just me, but even having the amphibious assault ship parked so closely to the shore makes it difficult for me to suspend my disbelief.

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-06-15 06:39

We are getting the Harrier for taking off ships...yeah and with new 0.6 jets, the vBF2 landing strips are ridiculus...when I flew the A10 on LAN on Daqin map, I saw the runway from air and thought "You gotta be kidding me!"...or it was the PLA jet, since I bumped the A10 into a tree right next to the airstrip...

DarkTalon · Post by **DarkTalon** » 2007-06-15 06:49

doesn't bf2 have textures with specific properties, i.e. sand makes vehicles slide more. or was that just another lie EA made up?
if they do it could solve the problem of the arresting wires, only problem i see is the terrain would have to go through the rear of the carrier, meaning we lose the dock in the bottom of the ship.

TexLax · Post by **TexLax** » 2007-06-15 07:01

DarkTalon wrote: if they do it could solve the problem of the arresting wires, only problem i see is the terrain would have to go through the rear of the carrier, meaning we lose the dock in the bottom of the ship.

just another lie

-=ToD=-KNIFE · Post by **-=ToD=-KNIFE** » 2007-06-15 07:11

With a Skilled Pilot they can land On Anything, That Carrier say was in Game with no Arrester Hooks and you FINALLY gotta land for Ammo, Id land it, just the thing of Keeping your Approch Correct and Speed Low and the Nose Raised. But if ya want throw a Couple of Av8-2's on. But thats just me and i have Experiance

(Considering how hard it is to land a Su-32 on the Admeral Kruschev)

Darkpowder · Post by **Darkpowder** » 2007-06-15 08:26

Oh come now, landing on carriers is not -that- difficult.
When practicing with our USEF air-wing in tournament (and i hardly ever fly alas). We were putting two aircraft down behind one another on the main deck, and manevering them both on the deck at the same time for turnaround to take off again.

There is no way i want a "n00b-wire" to make carrier landings any more "gamey" or "arcadey" than they already are.

Would be more useful to have someone sat on the carrier or in the airport (as we often do) Telling people if the "pattern is full" "wreckage on the runway" "runway damaged" etc. "noobs parking humvees on the runway" etc.

Along with Fuel-Stops Required, and all the lengthy reload and repair times needed for realism.

TexLax · Post by **TexLax** » 2007-06-15 08:29

*sigh*

it doesn't really matter because...

IT'S HARDCODED

daranz · Post by **daranz** » 2007-06-15 08:36

Darkpowder wrote: Would be more useful to have someone sat on the carrier or in the airport (as we often do) Telling people if the "pattern is full" "wreckage on the runway" "runway damaged" etc. "noobs parking humvees on the runway" etc.

Along with Fuel-Stops Required, and all the lengthy reload and repair times needed for realism.

Oh yes, realism combined with vanilla: stack the aircraft up while the MPs clear the retarded specop off the runway before he SLAMs his humvee leaving a smoldering wreck in the middle of the runway.

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-06-15 08:45

I played Sandbox mod one round, and 1 guy was the ATC and the pilots would reques takeoff and landings and try for Carrier landing qualification. after this other guy trys 10 times or something I try once and get a A, perfect landing, you just need to know how to do it. You should be droping out of the sky when you cross the deck.
I also never use more than half the runway on Basra.

Ecko · Post by **Ecko** » 2007-06-15 08:55

TexLax wrote:*sigh*

it doesn't really matter because...

IT'S HARDCODED

You sure about that?

ryan d ale · Post by **ryan d ale** » 2007-06-15 10:14

I don't give a damn personally. That "noobwire" is what they use in real life, it is not gamey or arcadey and it doesn't matter anyway. There's not enough maps with the assault ship for me to give a damn anyway.