U.S. Carrier needs rebuilt!

[Spaz]

@CAS_117: That's the SF carrier right?

[CAS_117]

yes. Iron Gator.

[LeadMagnet]

And as previously mentioned we are not allowed to edit DICE models. We cannot speak for the CA mod team...

[CAS_117]

We didn't edit the model. Probably need to re-texture it.

[McBumLuv]

We didn't edit the model. Probably need to re-texture it.

Yea. While texturing a catapult onto it wouldn't be as clean as having it's edges done into the texture (Like the letters and such are), it would still be better than using a pipeline as a substitute

Damn, I wish we had a Nimitz :/

[torenico]

I wish we had a Destroyer or something, I dont think a carrier will go alone.

[TempesT]

The carrier in game is more of an Amphibious Assualt ship than an Aircraft Carrier. The carrier shown in PR is only used for Helicopters and VTOL aircraft.

[alexaus]

didnt rhino say exactly that afew posts ago

[McBumLuv]

Ahhhh, if only STOVL was worked on and perfected, 4x4 km amphibious assault maps would finally work!

Mind you, I'm sure it would be a b*tch to code properly, considering all the things you need to get to work properly.

[Rudd]

what is so great about STOVL ingame really?

[SqnLdr]

Obviously...

Nah. STOVL means it can be fielded and rearmed from a small ship / airfield / road etc, reducing mapper load, the need for new statics etc. No other purpose.

[McBumLuv]

Ye, it means we can have combined arm amphibious assualts (with Harriers ). It also means that the aircraft could behave realistically, and you wouldn't have to resort to giving them vBF2 F-35 qualities (being able to take-foo from the 1 or 2 meters of deck because of it's high acceleration ).

[Rudd]

Obviously...

Nah. STOVL means it can be fielded and rearmed from a small ship / airfield / road etc, reducing mapper load, the need for new statics etc. No other purpose.

ooooooooooooooooooor you could make it so the air vehicles can take off from a shorter run way anyway. Doesn't need a new static....

Realisitc air assets don't rest on if the take off distance = Xm.

[McBumLuv]

No, but as I gather the acceleration affects both positive and negative acceleration. Meaning you could use it in dogfights (Stalling and then flying behind them), or w/e.

STOVL is possible to code, you just need to make it so that the upwards lift is just enough to barelly keep you afloat so you can't take off with it, and then need to get rid of it's sensitiveness to rolls/pitchs. Sounds easier than it is though

But, if you were to implement Harriers anyway, why not perfect STOVL in the first place?

[Rudd]

Point is, when would you actually use the VTOL?

I don't see when it would be useful, so why do alot of whoha to make it work?

Just throw the Harrier in to the game with modified stats

[VMP]

k done.

a new class Deck crewmen lol

also that really cool CAS_117

[HughJass]

ooooooooooooooooooor you could make it so the air vehicles can take off from a shorter run way anyway. Doesn't need a new static....

Realisitc air assets don't rest on if the take off distance = Xm.

On a side note: Maybe even consider slowing down jet (not joking) speed, making jets more usable on 4 km maps. IMO 8km maps are currently somewhat broken (and don't allow for much quality)

[SqnLdr]

IMO, jets are more than useable on 4km maps. The problem arises from the enemy having exactly the same capability as you at exactly the same time - you're too focused on the other jet to be effective to the team. More 4km maps where only one team has a ground support aircraft.

[Jigsaw]

IMO, jets are more than useable on 4km maps. The problem arises from the enemy having exactly the same capability as you at exactly the same time - you're too focused on the other jet to be effective to the team. More 4km maps where only one team has a ground support aircraft.

Sangin

[masterceo]

Sangin will be probably realeased in 0.9 and i suppose that 0.9 version of PR is at least 6 months away. i'd like to see a proper model of a carrier in pr, and see it in action on maps like Seethed Waters