CV size

[fbWldcat]

Is it just me, or do the CV's in the game appear smaller than the ones in the actual war? They look the same, yes, but the CVs in the game aren't large enough to fly a B25 from. It crossed my mind the other day when I tried an emergency landing on a cv, and still had my wing broken off. I was pretty far away from the right side of the ship and still got a good grazing pass on the ship.

Is this actually a problem or is it just my imagination? 

[gyrene81]

Yeah, CV deck is scaled down.

[Lusche]

They look the same, yes, but the CVs in the game aren't large enough to fly a B25 from.

They are. You are just spawning in a slightly unfavorable position. You can easily take off by disabling autotakeoff and correcting a tad to the left.

Yeah, CV deck is scaled down.

It is?
Took a quick loot at wikipedia: USS Essex beam at waterline 28m. B-25 wingspan: 20.6m

Seems to match when looking at both:

[Baumer]

As Snailman posted, it's just your imagination. The USS Randolph (CV-15) is modeled correctly in length and flight deck width.

[gyrene81]

As Snailman posted, it's just your imagination. The USS Randolph (CV-15) is modeled correctly in length and flight deck width.

I don't think so.



You can't get 2 abreast on the deck in AH, and sitting in the cockpit, you should not be eye level to the superstructure as high as in AH.

[Tilt]

I don't think so.

 and sitting in the cockpit, you should not be eye level to the superstructure as high as in AH.

Sitting in a tail dragger are you not looking up at the tower when spawning hence it looks to be at eye level.

[Lusche]

Here are some SBD on aft deck of USS Randolph



And now excuse my extremely crappy montage, I had to do this on the fly with irfanview, don't have gimp installed at the moment:



You see they fit about the same way as the real ones



Also, take your time and measure B-25 wingspan & carrier waterline beam on my first picture. You will find they have the same ratio as you would expect from RL numbers (28 to 20m)

[Baumer]

I don't think so.

Fine by me, download the Terrain Editor and measure it yourself. I know it measures accurately in the TE, but go ahead and knock yourself out.

[Saxman]

Part of the problem is your field of view and perspective in the game. Objects don't scale based on distance the way they would in real life, so objects that are farther away end up looking smaller than they should.

[gyrene81]

Then it's a matter of perspective. Because sitting in the cockpit on the deck, it looks suspiciously tight even in a single prop plane.

[Masherbrum]

What Lusche and Baumer have said.   

[Masherbrum]

Then it's a matter of perspective. Because sitting in the cockpit on the deck, it looks suspiciously tight even in a single prop plane.


(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

They did NOT have 2 25's wingtip abreast on the the Hornet either.   IIRC, the 25's were just as tight as what we have modeled in the game.   Actually, I'm glad it is tougher to rearm bombers in here. 

[gyrene81]

They did NOT have 2 25's wingtip abreast on the the Hornet either.   IIRC, the 25's were just as tight as what we have modeled in the game.   Actually, I'm glad it is tougher to rearm bombers in here. 

Not mention even with only 25% fuel and no bombs it's a bugger trying to get it up in the air off a cv.  But I did land one after 10 tries... 

[Puck]

Then it's a matter of perspective. Because sitting in the cockpit on the deck, it looks suspiciously tight even in a single prop plane.

STANDING on the deck of a (modern) carrier, particularly if the air wing is gone, the bloody thing is HUGE.  Sitting in an aircraft it shrinks considerably, and at 3/4 on final it's butterin' TINY!  I've never flown off an Essex, but I can't imagine the effect is any different.