BaseSize parameter for carriers

[Svetlin 554]

Hi guys, may I ask for some guidance on the BaseSize parameter for carriers? I wanted to fly the Super Etendard out of the R91 CDG in Single Mission, but initially could not do it, until I saw that R91 CDG was set up as BaseSize=SMALL, while the respective setting for the Super Etendard required MEDIUM size bases. So, that got me wondering which entry would be correct to edit - that for the carrier, or that for the aircraft? I changed that for the aircraft, just to test and the problem was solved, but the questions remain. How do we decide whether to set up a base as SMALL, MEDIUM or LARGE? Is there any difference with respect to that setting for land bases and carriers? If it was up to me to decide, I would set up amphibious assault ships as BaseSize=SMALL, smaller aircraft carriers as BaseSize=MEDUM and large aircraft carriers as BaseSize=LARGE, but that of course is not based on a specific rule or knowledge about the way the game works, simply on the number of aircraft a ship is able to carry in real life. Based on that logic I would actually change the R91 CDG base size from small to medium and restore the Super Etendard setting to the original state. Thank you in advance for sharing some knowledge on the topic.

[+EricJ 4,276]

After like playing games since 1993 I figured that if it was intended to work a certain way, it would work a certain way, and with some logic. I don't disagree with you as it's a logical thing, but if it's SMALL then it's SMALL. The kicker is that nobody AFAIK can't adjust it, but you gotta remember you're landing on a moving platform that is relatively small, so I figured that's the logic behind TK assiging a deck as SMALL, and not how you relate. I mean there's little room to maneuver so it does seem logical. I mean it's unlikely to change in the future as we'll be starting to beat a dead horse on that particular thread.

But if you do adjust it then make sure it correlates with the size of the deck though. But I don't care as much about deck size and how it should be rated. As long as I can trap on the deck that's all I worry about.

Edited November 15 by EricJ

[Mr_Tayto 141]

@Svetlin have you tried actually landing on the deck? Also I wonder if it's worth checking the US naval aircraft for their "basesize" settings; it could be that the value relates to runway length for unassisted takeoffs, or even for runway surface (I noticed earlier this week some aircraft taking off from rough fields in game, which I didn't even know existed)?

[Wrench 9,900]

I would base it on flight deck size ... the stock Essex (SCB-125) is rated SMALL. This is correct, as they couldn't launch or recover Phantoms for various reasons (cat stroke, arrester cable strength) (had a friend who's dad served on the Coral Sea -- they even had problems launching at a full load)

The stock Kittyhawk's (CVA-63) are classed as medium, as are the Nimitz class.

You don't want to go Large, as that's for things like An-12s, B-52s, Tu-95s, etc

The "rough fields" you taking about is the Runway3, is classed as SMALL -- and very stupidly created for this game. I mean, who the fuck is going to operated jets, with low-slung intakes just asking for FOD. (that's why I've repaved them on most of my terrain mods)

runway 2, the part paved, part marston matt, is classed as MEDIUM, even though it's the smallest of those (1,5,6)

So to conclude; if the CDG is near Essex size, use SMALL  in the Entendar's data ini

 

[Svetlin 554]

Thank you, Wrench! Yes, you are correct of course about BaseSize=LARGE for heavy bombers and transports, though the game would not populate such on an aircraft carrier, even if it is set as CarrierBaseSize=LARGE, unless someone edits the bomber/transport aircraft data.ini with CarrierBased=TRUE and the proper nation entry. The R91 CDG has in fact slightly shorter flight deck than the Essex class, but much wider and carries fewer aircraft (probably because of the aircraft size difference).

Mr_Tayto, yes, I have launched and trapped on the R91 CDG, no problem. I am not sure if the game really "knows" what the runway surface and be able to choose which aircraft to populate on rough fields and which on paved runways only.

[Wrench 9,900]

which birds get parked are set in the airfield's ini, by wingspan. So, yes, you can have fer instance, an-12s or c-119 or that type on a runway 3

below, is from the runway3 ini (notaitons of acutal parking slots removed for clarity. also, the chance percentage has been modified by me to have more parked birds)

Quote

ParkingChance=70
ParkingMaxSpan=18.0

 

LargeParkingChance=70
LargeParkingMaxSpan=48.0

 

 

[simonmiller416 2,081]

I agree with Wrench, that's exactly what I did.

For this reason, I even changed those carrier-based aircraft to SMALL... It won't actually do anything, it will only affect who and who can be carried.So I won't think too much on it, just make up a personal standard lol.

But I see some good points.

Edited November 16 by simonmiller416

[+EricJ 4,276]

I can see the need to limit sizes, but wouldn't this more or less matter anyway?

CarrierBased=TRUE
CarrierParkSpan=10.06
CarrierParkAnimationID=7

Because regardless of size, this I would think if included (Or FALSE), would prevent planes from even hitting the deck anyway, so I think the point is kinda moot (but I could be wrong) as lon as you don't have the above values in the _Data.ini anyway.

 I mean it stopped the Australian Super Hornets from spawning on the deck, which obviously makes sense since Australia presently doesn't have any carriers.

Edited November 16 by EricJ

[+Gepard 11,490]

If you set the Super Etendard to SMALL you should check, whether the plane still can take off from small land airbases too.

The setting BaseSize=SMALL  or BaseSize=MEDIUM is unfortunatly connected with carrier size and size of land airfields. This can cause problems, like that a plane, which is moved from MEDIUM to SMALL setting, needs a longer runway for ground airfields and is overrunning the runway now.