IAS 0 Posted February 8, 2006 I've started work on LHD1 WASP i have 30% of model LOD1 What you think abaut my work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Abs_01 0 Posted February 8, 2006 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
franze 196 Posted February 8, 2006 Nice carrier, it looks like you're planning mostly for the main deck? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IAS 0 Posted February 8, 2006 It,s will be good object to movies in ofp.I have hope That in ArmA therre will be not any limitations witch carriers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AfrographX 0 Posted February 8, 2006 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sgt_Eversmann 1 Posted February 8, 2006 aye, some nice harriers mp mission or something! keep up the good work m8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted February 8, 2006 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gux 0 Posted February 8, 2006 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted February 8, 2006 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ironsight 1 Posted February 8, 2006 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: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AOCbravo2004 0 Posted February 8, 2006 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gux 0 Posted February 8, 2006 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JdB 151 Posted February 8, 2006 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted February 8, 2006 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? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tankieboy 0 Posted February 8, 2006 I wonder if we will ever see HMS Ocean in OFP... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RKSL-Rock Posted February 8, 2006 I wonder if we will ever see HMS Ocean in OFP... I was hoping someone would offer to make one... *cough*CBFASI*cough* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IAS 0 Posted February 9, 2006 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 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[aps]gnat 28 Posted February 9, 2006 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raddar 0 Posted February 9, 2006 Nice model, I'll be waiting for next screens Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Banderas 0 Posted February 19, 2006 Hi IAS! that's one nice little boat how is your progress going on with it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IAS 0 Posted February 23, 2006 Ive back to LHD project i've started work on textures Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
franze 196 Posted February 23, 2006 Looking good! Have you done any of the internal decks? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IAS 0 Posted February 23, 2006 i will make one deck for amphibious vehicles i dont want to make any internals beucose this is useless Share this post Link to post Share on other sites