There is a option to turn it off, but i understand your points and views.
Its a shame this doesn't apply to carriers too. I would love to land on a carrier that's bucking, people landing and taking off of carriers currently have it EASY, "way way stupid dumb its just a moving runway easy" reality is a carrier even at full stop would still move around in pitch and roll. Might not matter much on takeoff granted the planes in on the "ground" untill lift off. just wanna see some hard landings sometimes.
In normal sea state, there is very little perception of rolling or pitching on a carrier. I've been aboard CVs with sea states from flat calm to 40 ft swells in 50 knot winds, taking green water over the bow.
What annoys me is that absolute lack of lateral tire adhesion. It's as if you were taking off or taxiing on a frozen lake. I have taxied on real carrier deck when the ship was turning into the wind, and the only sense of turning was the horizon changing. No sliding, no tendency to "understeer" counter to ship movement. This is one of the most unrealistic facets of carrier ops in Aces High.
I understand the ability to roll backwards into the wires. This simulates deck handlers pushing the aircraft back. However, there is no "Island Burble", the turbulence caused by air flow around the ship's superstructure. This can cause a notable wobble, especially in aircraft with low approach speeds.
For simplicity sake, there is no relative wind at sea level. In other words, the ship doesn't have to turn into the wind to launch planes. This was needed for several reasons, including reducing take off roll length, and eliminating a crosswind on deck, something you do not want doing deck runs. This I can live with because it is unlikely that anyone could turn the ship into the wind without some "map board admiral" changing heading while 10 sectors distant, or some clueless dolt thinking he's doing the smart thing.
Also, ship formations never, ever, maneuver like our fleets do when changing heading. This is a compromise of programming, and completely unrealistic.
What would add realism to carrier ops is realistic effect of engine torque at low air speed. If you blow your approach in an F4U, you can go to full throttle instantly at 95 mph and suffer no ill handling. If a pilot did that in the real world, his F4U would try to roll inverted in a heart beat. It could not be countered very much by flight controls (loss of rudder effectiveness at low speed, nose high as well as a loss of aileron effectiveness). Power must be pulled back to stop the roll, but that means a stall is likely. Thus, the real risk of crashing onto the ship or into the sea.
I understand the need to keep carrier ops simple enough for the lowest common denominator, but it does lack a great deal of realism.
