First of all, THANK YOU to all involved in this fine mod work to enhance surface units, this is very exciting to read and see.

Interesting discussion. Re the mod packs, my humble suggestoin might be to do the carrier or carriers before group 4, in terms of game play and scenarios, there is much more purpose to have working carriers, even if their air groups must constantly circle than the small navies, interesting tho they are, and I too love the story of Finland.

Re the Kriegsmarine, it was a powerful and siginficant fleet far beyond its completion numbers due to the vastly superior watertight integrity, engineering advances in drive train, and gunnery, and training, and was a major influence on the naval war from the start.

Surface campaigns could and should include the Norway invasion that saw the loss of major units by both sides, including the loss of two British carriers at sea with almost all hands, and many other sorties, the battle at Narvik, and other events. A carrier arm would have greatly increased the potential of the KM in many ways, for a roving carrier fast battleship group at sea would have wreaked havoc on the convoy lanes, as the KM did not betray their positions at sea for surface units as they did with subs. And ys the Italian Navy was a very very fine fleet, some of the best ship designs of the time, and there were significant surface engagements and events, such as the torpedoing of the fleet at Tarento, many convoy engagments that were attempting to resupply Rommel, and many more possiblities. The evac of Greece comes to mind, and with that, hopes that some kind of air resources may be able to added to the game, mod wise, tho i know that is a long shot at this point.

and ys, the Pacific Theatre was a surface war as much as an air war and a sub war, and the doctrine, training and focus of tactics and strategy of both fleets showed that, for indeed the IJN perservered indeed in face of facts, in hoping for the great final conflict on the surface, which was deeply ingrained in them from the successes of the Russo Japanese War and their history of association with the RN and its heritage of surface fleet strategy and Mahan's overall philosophy.

This mod work is very exciting to see and great enhances the potential of this already amazing sim. I have the greatest admiration for all hands involved.

3D Models and Lighting
 

Ivank, here is a wonderful site concerning 3d watercrafts for FSX.Maybe this guy can give you some help with vessel moving parts,lighting and more,he is really good !

http://www.deltasimstudio.com/index.htm

Best regards.

Yeah, but it would be a single CV vs enemies with multiple CVs.

If you're within range of land-based air, the CV becomes the prime target, and quickly dead. If it's actually at sea for extended periods (sort of laughable as a concept for the KM), then it faces multiple CVs. On top of that, it has virtually no replenishment.

Single CVs have use, to be sure, but they are far more useful for a navy that has CVs to burn. If it's a precious unit, then a lone CV is indeed useless. Even the IJN with multiple fleet CVs was in this situation. Each carrier was effectively irreplaceable. As a result, using them onesy-twosy was a disaster. Using them attracts the enemy, yet a single CV (particularly one like GZ that would have had a tiny airgroup) cannot defend itself.

So useful, like Bismark, for one sortie.

Ah, but had the Bismarck a carrier for air cover, the Ark Royal's torpedo planes would not have been able to jam her rudder, thus allowing her to escape to occupied France...probably

The Royal Navy had more CVs, but they had to spread 'em to places like the far-east and the Med, so the GZ could have operated in the Atlantic

Til the USN came to town. Then the GZ would have been talking to the fishes.

The KM had zero experience operating CVs. Zero. Had the GZ been finished, there is no reason to expect it would have been early in the war, otherwise, well, it would have been finished. Had they not done so when they were winning everywhere, you must assume she'd be commissioned after things went south. Think 1942 (late) earliest.

1943 is a bad time for "on the job training" in CV operations vs the USN.

Also, the KM had already picked navalized 109s and Ju-87s as the planes. Noobs. Water-cooled engines? WTF were they thinking? (yeah, I know about navalized Spits, they were stupid, too. You want planes that can come home with cylinders missing when the alternative is being shark food.

Another problem is that they followed the RN/IJN model for plane embarkation. The GZ was designed to stow her aircraft below. That might be OK from a weather standpoint in the North Atlantic, but it makes for slow turn around times, and dangerous CVs. It was gassing and bombing up planes below decks that caused the IJN disaster that was Midway (contrary to popular myth, there were not many planes on the IJN flight decks that day, they were warming up in the hanger spaces). USN doctrine was to embark all aircraft on the flight deck. They only went below to be worked on. This allowed USN CVs to carry considerably more aircraft.

Quantity has a quality all its own ;)

hmmm

IJN did both on that fateful day, rearmed below and on the flight deck from the sources I have talked to who interviewed survivors in the IJN during the techncial mission to Japan in 1946, and there was ordinance all over the place hence the vulnearbility.

The chance, huge once in a lifetime shot that hit the Bismark's rudder is still the subject of drinks at reunions as fewer and fewer gather.....everyone knew and knows that was not something that could have been planned or counted on . Without that event, the first cruise of the Bismark might have been only the first of many, for she was a formidable force and the doctrine they were testing might indeed have forced changes in doctrine on both sides. If indeed she had effective air cover much would have been different and the support for air for the navy would have gotten past the fat fool who convinced Hitler to allow substandard air for the GZ. Ah so many ifs.

There were more carriers planned, but as noted, only one that neared completion and training would have indeed been tough in the midst of all else that was going on.

Another cool feature of all this mods would be to connect lets say the bridge and Commanders room via a corridor(at least on the biger units).This would give a more inmersive feeling,the dream is of course to create as more 3D stations as posible.
And at this point,tell me Ivank,would not be possible to modify the original interior subs and add some more realistic compartments ? That would be brilliant also :yep: .

Regards and very good job!!

I think the best that can be done at the moment is a detailed bridge , with crew and full interor , but I think this would add to the imersion greatly

As tomhugill said we are working on the bridge, darkfish is working wonders with it atm. I dont see why we would not be able to change the compartment, but that would be later, like in a patch. We have just so much work to do atm

Awesome looking mod!

I'd help if i knew jack about modding.

Keep it up, I'm looking forward to the release.

playable bridge pics
 

Well working wonders with it is a bit exaggerated..:)
Thought i'd post some pics here to show the general idea...
There's still a lot to do but it's already looking better than just an empty room with a few watches

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/c...rts_Bridge.jpg

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/c...s_Bridge_2.jpg

For now I'm concentrating on changing the textures, as you can see the lightmaps don't fit.

Yes,some more light and colour textures would be better I think.Anyway,dont you see this bridge a bit small or is my visual effect? And what about giving these bridges an eye candy atmosphere with furniture and all the stuff you can find in a bridge? Well. I think thats the final idea right?
The path is correct,you are doing a great job ;) :up:

Very good job with the bridge & the figure placement. I agree that lighting sources need work. In all likelihood the additional instruments & furniture will be added later, after more important work is done. And the size looks correct for the bridge of a destroyer or a cruiser, IMO.

That does look much better than the current blank interiors.
:up:
Looking forward to seeing more.

That looks great!

BTW, I assume that torpedos can be used, right? IN that case, DDs offer some very fun possibilities.

Damage control is a whole other area of possible complexity...

I think we're pretty much nailed the damage control and damage modeling aspects as demonstrated on my playable Yamato , if you do have any feedback regarding this area let me know :up:

Yeah most instruments will be added later. BTW there weren't that much of instruments / furniture on a bridge, see for example http://www.usstexasbb35.com/All-Phot...n-cagemast.jpg and http://jackwellsauthor.com/db1/00096...ges/Bridge.JPG

You're right, the bridge in the pictures is from the Evarts DE.


Torpedoes can be used yes. It's quite fun to attack the IJN fleet with a John C Butler DE in the battle off Samar:arrgh!:
http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/c.../JCB_Samar.jpg

@Tom

Yeah, the Yamato damage model looked really good.
I assume you will be able to make similar ones for the other ships. If so, that looks good.

Interesting how Spartan those bridges are. Still, I suppose that it's in line with the US Navy's policy after 1942 - they found that having too much furniture on board led to disastrous fires in combat.

It's good to hear there will be torpedo attacks. Do you expect that non-player units can be programmed to use them?

I would love to have AI torpedo attacks