Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cbradbury]

I am currently working on compiling additional ships for the next BAT update. I have primarily (but  not exclusively) chosen to concentrate on the older, often forgotten, vessels which hopefully will enhance the game.

The USS Langley (AV3) by Sani has been around a long time, but I understand the model may have problems with flight deck operations. However, as she is presented in the configuration as a seaplane tender after her 1937 refit, I don’t see this to be a real issue.

The ship looks great, and I have had no problems with her in BAT, although I have not tried the flight deck. I have made it available for test if anyone else wants to try her out. If you do try the flight deck and encounter issues, please let me know. I do not have the skill to do anything about that, and she would have to stay as a tender. Historically the flight deck was briefly used for aircraft ferry purposes.



Download link for test pack:

https://www.mediafire.com/file/d7m3a5vrn53byal/LangleyAV3_test_pack_BAT.7z/file

[Griffon_301]

quick report:

great ship and much needed for early war scenarios and to spice up the shipyard in BAT... thanks a lot for that!
concerning operations, you can "easily" land on the short deck, if you know what you do...just did some landing tests with an SB2U, a F2A, a F4F-3 and an SBD-1;
the only thing I noticed so far during a failed landing is that the SB2U in that case did continue rolling after the deck finished for a few meters, before it crashed into the ship portion below... you could visually see the aircraft rolling in the air... but thats a minor problem, I guess this ship will not find much use as an aircraft carrier anyhow

[cbradbury]

Good news, Griffon. So now I have to talk nicely to vampire_pilot about yet another ship on top of the big list I have already given him...

[Griffon_301]

ah I see no problem in integrating all those babies... I have added almost all ships that are available to my modded modules (IJN ones to the PTO module only of course) and none of the new ones gave any problems; in fact there is only one ship I could not get to work properly in BAT and that is the 1944 Zuikaku... all the rest are swimming and usable and they also work in missions (I modded some campaigns for my personal use with newer and better, more appropriate ships)

so I am looking forward to your ship pack for BAT, that should give the sim a huge boost for mission builders...

[cbradbury]

One thing I am working on, but probably not in time for the next update, is the DOF ships.ini. So many anachronisms it is virtually unusable in its current form (a DUKW in 1914 - really?). So eventually we should have era-appropriate ships.ini for that module. Then there will be TGA to do...phew!

[Griffon_301]

well, that sounds like a great idea! and due to the fact that all stuff is in sfs format, you can just delete the ships you do not need from chief and stationary inis without crashing the game;
should be easy to achieve; as said, I have done virtually the same in my theatre dedicated modules - no need for the KM and RM ships in the pacific while the IJN ships do not get used in ETO scenarios with the exception of the submarines but even these are just for historic nitpickers like me

TGA and DOF should be easy to do following above principles - you would just need to know which ships to drop and which to keep;
TGA will be tricky as most appropriate ships (launch date between 1918 and 1939) are included in BAT in their various war trims, not many prewar state ships in there...

[whistler]

Thanks for your work, cbradbury

TGA and DOF should be easy to do following above principles - you would just need to know which ships to drop and which to keep;

I wouldn't drop any ship or object from any module, files will remain there in the SFS: you delete a line and no longer can access 100mb worth of files. I think you can reorder lists and still keep non historical or "what if" actors/objects at the bottom, in example. Nothing goes to waste, imho. And then, who knows what objects mission creators used in their missions.

[Griffon_301]

whistler, basically I agree - but: which mission builder with some brain would put a Bismarck or Tirpitz, or an Italian BB in a mission that plays in the PTO for example? and vice versa?
and even if, just add the lines again and the ship is in...
of course its great to have ALL stuff in, but then again, cleaning up has its advantages too...

I am speaking just for myself now but I have never missed any of the Japanese ships (or aircraft) in any ETO campaign I have played since I created my dedicated ETO module;
and while modifying some of my PTO campaigns I have never come across a German or Italian ship used there so removing them from the chief.ini gave me a more cleaned up and theatre related shipyard...
of course mostly its cosmetics....

[whistler]

Don't underestimate the power of our mission creators. Remember: the hole in time stayed open



I made my point, please carry on with the lovely Langley

[Griffon_301]

OMG I forgot - the Eldridge is still travelling through time, and methinks the Nimitz has also made an appearance in 1941 - at least I saw a documentary about it called "The Final Countdown"

[cbradbury]

OMG I forgot - the Eldridge is still travelling through time, and methinks the Nimitz has also made an appearance in 1941 - at least I saw a documentary about it called "The Final Countdown"

I can never decide whether that film is really good or really bad...

[cbradbury]

Just a heads up - vampire tells me that all submissions for BAT 3.5 are now closed, so the Langley won't make it this time. So those of you that want her will have to use my 'test install' pack for the ship in the immediate future.