retexture Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier 2

[Gedis 0]

hey UNN,

i found for your ATC AI landing scripts scheme, how landing should be done on Kuznetsov (AI only):

and i have there (i my optimistic head) an idea...

it would be possible to make AI land and then Taxi on the deck's safe place that AI left the aircraft (flaps fully extended, then engine off)? and if the aircraft is without ammo or something it would taxi to the lift, go down with it and taxi to the hangar... (it's only for AI or maybe it's possible to the Player?)

it would be awesome to select command in the command menu like: Taxi on deck/Taxi to the hangar

just only idea...

[franze 196]

This carrier is looking so great, the only downside is the lack of russian carrier aircraft to employ on it. I'm not a big fan of the Yak-38.

But there's still the Su-33, MiG-27K (yeah, yeah, I know they didn't get it, but we gotta scrape something together :P ) and that Su-25 they were thinking about.

Anyone have some plans for a Kiev and/or Wasp class ships?

EDIT: Just thought, for CTI why not have one or both sides start on a carrier placed in the mission, then randomly (if necessary) move that carrier to a different position each time?

[Gedis 0]

well i have pdfs about Kiev and Baku class ships...

Kiev, Minsk, Novorosiysk, Baku (Admiral Gorshkov), but they were withdrowing from Russian navy in 1991...

[Aps]Gnat,

 I checked your deck pix and i found that your textured Admiral Kuznetsov's deck seems to fit 1985-1995 year period(as i remember good), nowaday kuznetsov deck's landing white stripes are shortened... well later i'll give photos where you will see how it looks...

[Footmunch 0]

Su-33 is on the way:

It will have folding wings, and there'll be an A2A version as well.

Franze - did you mean MiG-29K? Or was there a naval Flogger?

[[aps]gnat 28]

Su-33 is on the way:

Great News !!!  

Quote[/b] ]Just thought, for CTI why not have one or both sides start on a carrier placed in the mission, then randomly (if necessary) move that carrier to a different position each time?

Yep, that would work fine Franze, but I think some ppl would like to "sail" it about during a CTI ....

Quote[/b] ]I checked your deck pix and i found that your textured Admiral Kuznetsov's deck seems to fit 1985-1995 year period(as i remember good), nowaday kuznetsov deck's landing white stripes are shortened... well later i'll give photos where you will see how it looks...

Well, the main textures are from eddyD .... you know, the guy who's thread we've highjack!

I cant texture if my life depended on it so I suspect it was stay as-is.

[Gedis 0]

Footmunch,

maybe you need good drawings/blueprints, painting schemes of Su-33, of and maybe videos? i ask thins only because your Su-27 addon was not accurate...

[APS]Gnat,

that's how Kuznetsov's deck was painted in 1985-1995

same here

how it looks now

same

same again

bla bla...

bla bla bla...

bla bla bla bla...

again...

aircraft launching...

notice those two things near wheels

same here

aircraft standing on deck...

how it should be parked

[UNN 0]

Quote[/b] ]it would be possible to make AI land and then Taxi on the deck's safe place that AI left the aircraft (flaps fully extended, then engine off)? and if the aircraft is without ammo or something it would taxi to the lift, go down with it and taxi to the hangar... (it's only for AI or maybe it's possible to the Player?)

it would be awesome to select command in the command menu like: Taxi on deck/Taxi to the hangar

Yeah thats what I plan to add, when I get the chance. No reason why it won't work for the player to.

[eddyd 0]

hey all

Gnat , how is the carrier going ?

footmunch , nice to seen you working on the SU-33

i cant wait test that baby

[BlackScorpion 0]

aircraft launching...

notice those two things near wheels

same here

Meant to keep the aircraft still when lighting afterburners?

Nice links. Nice carrier.

[franze 196]

Franze - did you mean MiG-29K? Or was there a naval Flogger?

I can't believe I made that mistake.

But that's correct, I meant the Fulcrum.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Near done, UNN is just putting some ATC touches to it.

Added a boarding point, although not nessisarily realistic, its more OFP functional, seeing this ship can't sail anywhere and could be used in some boarding action missions.

[Gedis 0]

somebody asked about Kiev?

here it was/is/unknown

oh, it was Franze

found this link on the flashpoint.ru forum, maybe someone will contact author of this amazing thing (why? because look to the date, he was building it in 2002 , the golden era of  OFP scripts and addons started from 2003)

great job, Gnat and UNN!   keep it up

P.S. now i felt how time flyes... ofp was realeased in 2001, right? now it's 2006 and we still are addicted to the OFP, even more!

[.COMmunist 0]

Su-33 by Footmunch ... 10 million happy OFP pilots! Working Kuznetsov carrier by Gnat and UNN ... 10 million happy OFP navy pilots! Kuznetsov carrier with working lifts and a fleet of Su-33 on deck ... fu..ing priceless! This would be such a great gift to all of us OFP fanatics. Thanks for all your hard work boys, it sure looks impressive. It would so cool if someone could make a Yak-141 now. It is one ugly son of a bitch, but is one of the best vertical take off plane in the world. The Lockheed Martin purchased its vectoring take off system from Yak to use it on F-35. Russians can't affort funding the program now, good thing that the Americans didn't let it go to waste. Those Yak-38 are pretty sad in OFP and even worse in real life. Yak-141 would be a better substitute.

[hellfish6 7]

There's a Yak-141 in OFP, but it's configged as a helo.

[Shashman 0]

Su-33 by Footmunch ... 10 million happy OFP pilots! Working Kuznetsov carrier by Gnat and UNN ... 10 million happy OFP navy pilots! Kuznetsov carrier with working lifts and a fleet of Su-33 on deck ... fu..ing priceless! This would be such a great gift to all of us OFP fanatics. Thanks for all your hard work boys, it sure looks impressive. It would so cool if someone could make a Yak-141 now. It is one ugly son of a bitch, but is one of the best vertical take off plane in the world. The Lockheed Martin purchased its vectoring take off system from Yak to use it on F-35. Russians can't affort funding the program now, good thing that the Americans didn't let it go to waste. Those Yak-38 are pretty sad in OFP and even worse in real life. Yak-141 would be a better substitute.

I can't believe the OKB design team went from drawing up such a beauty as the Flanker family of aircraft, to that monstrosity

Nevertheless, it beats the Yak-38 Forger, which was a complete joke of an aircraft (ridiculous range, payload and electronics)

[franze 196]

I can't believe you people. The Yak-141 looks awesome.

[Shashman 0]

I can't believe you people. The Yak-141 looks awesome.

It could pass as a family saloon, with those angles and corners, but not as a combat aircraft

[franze 196]

And how much do YOU know about engineering an aircraft?

[Shashman 0]

And how much do YOU know about engineering an aircraft?

Not engineering as such, but let's say roughly 10 years of model making, 1 year of military flying training and a huge interest in aviation goes some way to qualify me

[franze 196]

Doesn't count, buddy. Engineering an aircraft is a lot different from building models or flying them.

Let me show you some interesting developments of combat aircraft.

MiG-9, a post war jet fighter:

MiG-15 (notice the similarities with MiG-9):

Classic MiG-21:

MiG-23:

MiG-29:

See a little trend in the development of MiG fighters, hmm?

Let's not forget the first four fighters were made in the thousands.

Be careful about what you describe as a bad combat aircraft.

[.COMmunist 0]

I don't think he was trying to say that it was a BAD aircraft. Just a design (the looks) are sort of squarish. It looks very good with the Mig-31 imo, but the sharp corners of Yak-141 reminds me Russian cars Thats all. I have read that the Yak-141 is quite a capable piece of machinery, but I think that the design sure could improve. If you could only see the original design for Su-27 and than compare it to the one that we have now, you will see what I mean.

[franze 196]

It must be my character because I like that 'boxy' look just fine. From my perspective, it looks a lot more capable than the Yak-38.

EDIT: More Yak-141 pics:

[Gedis 0]

cut that out!

you have to learn that, with no Yak-41(141) there would be no JSF-35! Russians set the new standarts for vertical take off/landing jet, without their help Lokheed wouldn't succed to make something like it and Boing(which was leader of this program in U.S.) would have very much problems with it and it would took decades when it would mass produced...

Lokheed asked for help from Yak biurou and now they leeds the program...

It's simple as that!  

Besides Yak-141 is not in service, it was created to replace Yak-38s on the Kiev and Gorshkov class heavy aircraft carring cruisers, but soviet union collapsed and russian economic crissis started... all, except Admiral Kuznetsov, heavy aircraft carring cruisers were put out of service, those that were building, were cancelled.

So major Yak-141 need was going to the end... Thought there were test flights from Kiev/Gorshkov class ships, but sadly one Yak-141 burned on the deck...

Sad story of the great plane and people that were building it, but this happens    

Well at least future concepts are great, but who nows, would we see those in service  

P.S. same story with russian ultra powerfull rocket engines, that U.S. even didn't knew that it's possible to make those, U.S. will need at least 15 years to know how to build it properly...

...Sad that true leader is hidding and selling it's best to the "official" world leader...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

cut that out!

you have to learn that, with no Yak-41(141) there would be no JSF-35!

Actually thats not true.  While Yak are helping Lockheed and Pratt and Whitney it’s only with the nozzle hinging and the research they did about the aerodynamic effects of the nozzle pitch at high speeds.

Russians set the new standarts for vertical take off/landing jet, without their help Lokheed wouldn't succed to make something like it and Boing(which was leader of this program in U.S.) would have very much problems with it and it would took decades when it would mass produced...

Lokheed asked for help from Yak biurou and now they leeds the program...

It's simple as that!  

At best without Yak it would have meant a delay in the Lockheed program while the research caught up.  The end result was (arguably) a 2 year reduction in R&D with Lockheed paying Yak for the info and sharing some info they learnt from the research with Yak.

Boeing also weren’t the leaders in this field; BAE Systems & Rolls Royce were.  Boeing received access to this info once they bought out McDonnell Douglas as they were licensed builders of the Harrier design (which is still owned by BAE by the way – they don’t have full design authority).  Lockheed also received the same info when they entered into a strategic partnership with BAE Systems on the JSF project.  Incidentally, unlike Boeing, Lockheed also got the research from the supersonic “harrier†research done by BAe Kingston in the ‘80s which was the real enabling technology behind the F-35’s ability to VTOL.

Besides Yak-141 is not in service, it was created to replace Yak-38s on the Kiev and Gorshkov class heavy aircraft carring cruisers, but soviet union collapsed and russian economic crissis started... all, except Admiral Kuznetsov, heavy aircraft carring cruisers were put out of service, those that were building, were cancelled.

Aside from lack of funding part of the reason it didn’t go in to production was they still hadn’t solved a lot of the transition to hover issues with the tendency to roll over at about 75kts causing some problems.  The flight control system couldn’t compensate quickly enough. (Source for that is Discovery Channel doc & Yefim Gordon’s book on Yak OKB) Havingsaid that it is a good if limited design which im sure had Yak gotten the money to devleop it further might have eventually become a decent challenger to the JSF.

[Shashman 0]

Doesn't count, buddy. Engineering an aircraft is a lot different from building models or flying them.

Let me show you some interesting developments of combat aircraft.

MiG-9, a post war jet fighter:

Let's not forget the first four fighters were made in the thousands.

Be careful about what you describe as a bad combat aircraft.  

You've obviously got the wrong end of the stick... I was commenting on the aesthetics of the aircraft, not it's performance or design qualities