LHD1 WASP Work in Progress

[IAS 0]

I've started work on LHD1 WASP i have 30% of model LOD1 What you think abaut my work.

[Abs_01 0]

It looks pretty good so far. How big is it? I know that OFP has a problem with object more than about 60 meters, which is why the aircraft carriers in existence right now are in pieces and don't move.

Anyway, it looks really promising! Keep up the good work!

Abs

[franze 196]

Nice carrier, it looks like you're planning mostly for the main deck?

[IAS 0]

It,s will be good object to movies in ofp.I have hope That in ArmA therre will be not any limitations witch carriers.

[AfrographX 0]

actually static ships like the one you're building could be used for much more than just cutscenes. For instance a starting/refueling point in sp-missions or as a respawn-base in multiplayer. And as far as I know such ships aren't driving when they are executing a landing operation anyway.

[Sgt_Eversmann 1]

aye, some nice harriers mp mission or something!

keep up the good work m8

[JdB 151]

actually static ships like the one you're building could be used for much more than just cutscenes. For instance a starting/refueling point in sp-missions or as a respawn-base in multiplayer. And as far as I know such ships aren't driving when they are executing a landing operation anyway.

A stationary carrier?

A great way of having a shot at sinking a $500.000.000 vessel.

Carriers are always on the move, that is what makes carrierlandings so difficult.

[Gux 0]

Carriers are always on the move, that is what makes carrierlandings so difficult.

Wow, really? I thought it was all those brightly colored people on the deck strutting about waving sticks and whatnot trying to distract the pilots while they're trying to land. But you're saying it's because it moves. Now I see.

[JdB 151]

Carriers are always on the move, that is what makes carrierlandings so difficult.

Wow, really? I thought it was all those brightly colored people on the deck strutting about waving sticks and whatnot trying to distract the pilots while they're trying to land. But you're saying it's because it moves. Now I see.

And why do you think those people are there? Right, because the carrier moves and is affected by the waves, the aircraft are affected by atmosperic conditions like rain and wind, making the approach so difficult.

But as always in this particular type of conversation I am sure the person that replies is a decorated veteran of the specific military action

[Ironsight 1]

actually static ships like the one you're building could be used for much more than just cutscenes. For instance a starting/refueling point in sp-missions or as a respawn-base in multiplayer. And as far as I know such ships aren't driving when they are executing a landing operation anyway.

A stationary carrier?

A great way of having a shot at sinking a $500.000.000 vessel.

Carriers are always on the move, that is what makes carrierlandings so difficult.

I have actually never seen a single carrier with well deck moving during a landing exercise. I have only seem them move when they insert LCAC's. I think the wake of the ship is giving too much problems for other landing vehicles like the AAV7 or the LCU's. So Afro is right when you are talking about ships with well decks.

EDIT:

Here's some proof. The ship is even anchored:

On this photo you can see there's no wake from the ship:

EDIT2:

Ship class similair to the Wasp, the Tarawa. No wake of the ship:

[AOCbravo2004 0]

actually static ships like the one you're building could be used for much more than just cutscenes. For instance a starting/refueling point in sp-missions or as a respawn-base in multiplayer. And as far as I know such ships aren't driving when they are executing a landing operation anyway.

A stationary carrier?

A great way of having a shot at sinking a $500.000.000 vessel.

Carriers are always on the move, that is what makes carrierlandings so difficult.

Aircraft carriers are on the move so that wind is produced over the deck, it assists a/c with producing lift, and with the speed an a/c has to hit the deck at. It is also difficult to land on a carrier because the deck is angled, and lets not forget that the ship can and does pitch and roll especially in rough seas.

[Gux 0]

And why do you think those people are there? Right, because the carrier moves and is affected by the waves, the aircraft are affected by atmosperic conditions like rain and wind, making the approach so difficult.

Aye, sarcasm on the internet be a harsh mistress. I've learned my lesson.

[JdB 151]

The only thing that lands on those vessels are Harrier VTOL's and helo's, they don't have the same role within the US armed forces as real carriers do. ''All'' the Harriers are supposed to do is provide support for ground forces. The British did use their carrierbased Harriers in the Falklands for air superiority only because they did not have full scale carriers. Necessity breaks rule.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

The British did use their carrierbased Harriers in the Falklands for air superiority only because they did not have full scale carriers. Necessity breaks rule.

Actually that is wrong.  The Sea Harrier (SHAR) FRS1 used in the Falklands primary role is fleet defence and was designed specifically for that role.  FRS means Fighter, Recon, Strike.  It was the only truly swing role aircraft in the UK inventory until the Eurofighter came into service.

The Harrier GR3 of the Falklands period was strictly a strike aircraft with no radar unlike the FRS1s.

Although what you say about the Ground Support role is correct for the Modern US Marine Corps it’s not for the Royal Navy.  Atleast it wont be true until March ’06 when they retire the last Sea Harrier FA2(Latest version of the SHAR) from service.  After which time they will fly the Harrier GR9 Strike Aircraft which while it does carry sidewinders still does not have a radar.

Finally as for stationary carriers; in reality even the Harrier still needs the ship to be moving with 30kts of wind across the deck for the Harriers to achieve a fuel efficient take off.  Although it is true it can still take off in still air it means it take more deck space to manage it with a full war load and fuel and its practically impossible for a Harrier of any sort to VTOL with such a load without sufficient windspeed to help with engine cooling…

…But that’s reality and this is a game where the engine doesn’t allow for sufficiently large moving structures so some of the comment in this thread are rather irrelevant don’t you think?

[tankieboy 0]

I wonder if we will ever see HMS Ocean in OFP...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

I wonder if we will ever see HMS Ocean in OFP...

I was hoping someone would offer to make one... *cough*CBFASI*cough*

[IAS 0]

I'm working on the back of the WASP there are many work with textures but i think i will finish it before end of month

[[aps]gnat 28]

IAS,

I hoping your aware of the OFP engine limitations and that you'll have to cut this model up into separate addons (.p3d files), each no bigger than 50m x 50m x 50m because if you don't you will not be able to use any of the walking / landing surfaces.

The other way to do it (like the russian carrier) is to have one or two full sized .p3d file to "show" the Wasp, and a bunch of other smaller "invisible" 50x50x50m addons that make the deck, elevator and other bits walkable.

Good to see another ship Best of luck.

[Raddar 0]

Nice model, I'll be waiting for next screens

[Banderas 0]

Hi IAS!

that's one nice little boat

how is your progress going on with it?

[IAS 0]

Ive back to LHD project i've started work on textures

[franze 196]

Looking good! Have you done any of the internal decks?

[IAS 0]

i will make one deck for amphibious vehicles i dont want to make any internals beucose this is useless