|
Author
|
Topic: Ark Royal, alternate version ;)
|
Nat
Pilot
|
posted 07-23- 05:19 AM
   
well, I was thinking about the dynamic mission builders out there, and SDOE War.. well, what if the axis cripple the Ark Royal out at sea.. well, it needs to be towed home before you can effect repairs right?  this crippled, listing and on tow version is now posted in my Ground Units section.. maybe I should change it to a Naval Units section huh? lol Crippled Carrier
 ------------------
JV44 "Naturlich"
If you can't out run em.. <B>OUT GUN EM!</B>
<B>Nats FS-SDOE Site</B> IP: Logged |
CrossbowArcher
Pilot
|
posted 07-23- 05:26 AM
LOL  ps thinking bout changing my sig to a glider bomb hitting the Ark Royal oh no, im starting to post all day, hell, I've too much free time on weekends ------------------
If you can't out gun em, OUT RANGE EM! [This message has been edited by CrossbowArcher (edited 07-23-2000).] IP: Logged |
Vau
Pilot
|
posted 07-23- 07:42 AM
No, Nat, no! You are completely wrong! Itīs called "SD *over* E.", not "near the shore of", "ahead the coast of", "in the waves before" or someting else. Is there even one shanty-song on the CD? This is no stinkinī naval simulation! IP: Logged |
Private Roger
Pilot
|
posted 07-23- 07:51 AM
I love it Nat!That is so cool! BTW I got up early this morning and tried to place planes on the Ark Royal, but it suffers from the same problem as the "Big" Akagi. Mainly that aircraft can't start on it.  I wonder what makes these carriers different from the original Akagi? Once we get that licked we are closer to having a simulated Pacific/Med theatre. Good Luck PR=FC= [This message has been edited by Private Roger (edited 07-23-2000).] IP: Logged |
Nat
Pilot
|
posted 07-23- 03:27 PM
PR, I really don't know, I've checked the properties for against other carriers and they have all the same groups.. I'm wondering if t could possibly be the material, but then, I don't know what material the carriers are that let us place a/c on them, I'll keep lookin anyway cause we need to be able to start on deck reallyIP: Logged |
Snickers
Pilot
|
posted 07-23- 03:51 PM
Check the deck on the Akagi. I agree this is something that needs to be fixed for any carrier. If something special needs to be done, it needs to be well known and published.For getting the WAR aspect, its too much fun making missions that start on carriers. Wish there was a faster way to accurately place the planes though. They need to be parked in the back ready to go until, not just plopped on the deck... ------------------
Snickers
=FC=
 IP: Logged |
ArgonV
Pilot
|
posted 07-23- 04:12 PM
I have no problem placing a plane on the rear on the deck of the new Akagi or the IJN carrier aligned with the white stripes. Just the Ark Royal gives me a problem. Could it be because of its actuall size? (it is a small carrier) If anyone wants I have Taking Off and Landing missions for all the Navy planes. The Allied missions use the Ark Royal for landing and the Akagi for taking off (until the problem is solved) and the Japs use the IJN for Taking Off and Landing. The plane on the deck is placed near the rear and centered so the plane has enough room to take off.IP: Logged |
Nat
Pilot
|
posted 07-23- 04:15 PM
he Ark Royal properties are the same as the Akagi, I checked them last night, thats why I'm wondering if it could be a material thing, although I agree with Argon, could also be due to it being a small carrier.. I can't find material tables though, I looked through the Open Plane doc but I need to find which number relates to which material, all I know right now is that water is material 2IP: Logged |
Hawker
Pilot
|
posted 07-23- 09:49 PM
could it be that maybe the heights of the two carriers decks are different in overall altitude for the planes,I think you know what I am trying to say?IP: Logged |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
