Why do I have to "End Mission" every time?

[BraveSirRobin]

I do not look at myself as the one taking the decision of what they would work on, you got a very narcissistic tone there, Sir robin

 

So now posting my opinion means that I think I'm making decisions?  On what planet?

[Lusekofte]

Sir Robin I have nothing against you opinion and I am mostly on the same page as you. I merely pointed out a sentence you made excluding other people wishes. I think we have met a dead end and I wish you a pleasant evening

[DD_Arthur]

What? there are countless of stories of refuel and rearm up to 8 times on eastern  front. Even well described by Rudel himself.

 

 

Not while the engine was kept running as the OP claims.  As for refuel and re-arming?  Agree with BSR.   If you want realism do what real pilots did in WW2;  get out of the plane and take a crap.

Edited December 17, 2016 by DD_Arthur

[Lusekofte]

In DCS and COD same with 1946 you need to stop the engines, and you will not find any source it was done with engines running. 

And it would not make sense , Most engines would overheat running on idle in while , and how can one rearm the noseguns with the engine running?

A R&R feature has to be be done with engines off. 

If this is a request to have a fast exchange WT feature I will not use it either

Edited December 17, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte

[BraveSirRobin]

. I merely pointed out a sentence you made excluding other people wishes. 

 

No, I didn't.  I simply think it's a crappy idea.  That.  Is.  All.

[Mayor_Wang]

I'm glad to see flight sims being embraced by the younger generation.

[SuperCossack]

people just want what is realistic

 

my idea is to have rearming for 30 min as this will be realistic

 

 

however if you get shot down you can only be banned for life

 

this will simulate reality

[Finkeren]

In DCS and COD same with 1946 you need to stop the engines, and you will not find any source it was done with engines running.

And it would not make sense , Most engines would overheat running on idle in while , and how can one rearm the noseguns with the engine running?

A R&R feature has to be be done with engines off.

If this is a request to have a fast exchange WT feature I will not use it either

This is where I simply don't see, what this feature will be adding to gameplay. You can just as easily taxi the plane to the place where you spawned, turn the engine off, end mission and respawn in almost exactly the same place when you hit refly. If you want you can even take a few minutes to do something else to "simulate" the time it takes to do the refuel/rearm. Use that time to maybe type out a short after-action report.

 

I cannot see what sitting in your cockpit with the engine off waiting for a short while adds to the experience. It's not historical - in real life the pilot would always exit the cockpit, for safety reasons as well as giving report and just stretching his legs - there is no immersion, because there will be no animated crew working on your plane, you're literally just watching a timer count down.

 

I just don't get this idea.

[Finkeren]

Yet those same pilots would sit in their cockpits all day just waiting for the signal to go, but there is NO way they would sit in that same cockpit for half an hour just to rearm? Is that what your saying?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

 

First off, pilots never sat around in their cockpits all day waiting for signal to take off. Under specific circumstances, such as when early warning signaled a large-scale inbound attack, pilots could be ordered on scramble alert sitting in their pits, sometimes with the engine running. But this wouldn't go on for very long for obvious reasons (overheating, fuel consumption, pilot fatigue)

 

When landing to rearm and refuel, it would always be standard procedure for the pilot to get out of the cockpit for several reasons:

 

1. Safety: Tanking and arming a combat aircraft is not risk-free. If something goes wrong, you don't want the valuable pilot sitting strapped in the cockpit. Add to that the ever-present threat of a surprise strafing attack on the airfield, in which a parked, non-camouflaged plane with a fuel truck next to it would be a priority target.

 

2. Convenience: In most airforces it was not standard procedure for the pilot to start and sometimes even stop the engine himself. The ground crew did that. The pilot would only get in the cockpit as the engine was warming up. Having the pilot in the cockpit during rearm/refuel would just inconvenience the ground crew who had to inspect and work on the plane.

 

3. Debriefing: Except under extreme circumstances, the pilot would always give a short after-action report to a superior officer as well as recieve updated intelligence and weather reports. To have this be done in the cockpit with ground crew swarming all over the plane would be out of the question.

 

4. Pilot fatigue: In the rare circumstances, where a pilot would fly combat missions back-to-back only landing to rearm/refuel, it would be extremely important for the pilot to use those precious 15-20mins on the ground to stretch his legs, re-hydrate, relieve himself or maybe close his eyes for a moment to combat exhaustion. Sitting in a WW2 era cockpit is not comfortable, and the pilot would take any opportunity to get out.

 

I'm not saying that rearming/refueling with the pilot sitting in the cockpit never ever happened, but it would be a very rare occurance, and including it as a standard procedure in the sim would be quite historically inaccurate.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Finkeren

[HR_Zunzun]

I do not know why people consider being magically tele-transported to a virtual map and then grabbing a new plane is perfectly acceptable and then sitting for a while (why does it have to be for half an hour?) is short of historical and unacceptable.

The question (that had already being asked) is what it really would add to the game play. Obviously for people choosing to taxi to an specif point of the airfield and wait for a given time (I repeat that this shouldn't has to be as in reality and a good compromise I am sure could be found) there must be a purpose. Apart from the more hard core simmers that always seek more immersion, for the rest there should be some sort of rewards in doing it. Getting some sort of advantage compared to just res-pawing. If that could be implemented and be fair then RRR would be a good asset. If not, it would be just something that hardly anyone will use (and I think that even the more hard core adamant will stop using it after a while).

Edited December 17, 2016 by HR_Zunzun

[Finkeren]

I do not know why people consider being magically tele-transported to a virtual map and then grabbing a new plane is perfectly acceptable and then sitting for a while (why it have to be half an hour) is short of historical and unacceptable.

There is a difference between something born out of necessity (since this a computer game you'll have to spawn into the game world at some point) and deliberately creating an un-historical feature with dubious benefits for the gameplay.

[216th_Jordan]

I do not really understand what the discussion is all about. some people want it, others don't. If you can do both then it is up to the Mission designer and nobody gets hurt. So what is all that fuzz about? If the devs say: impossible as very much development time needed for it or absolutely not what they want to do, fine by me, not a dealbreaker.

[HR_Zunzun]

Waiting in your plane is something plausible. Being teletransported never happened. The fact that we are so used to the magic teletrasporting (out of necessity) doesn't change the fact that is one of the biggest immersion killers. RRR will be unhistorical but for the same reason as res pawing, out of necessity, as in the game you can't leave your air plane and go to the canteen (or the latrine) while it is RRR.

For example, having airplanes vulnerable to air attack for a while could change the way people consider when choosing an airfield and made taking off from a more distant air base of some merit.

I am not saying that this RRR would work or is the solution to anything. I am just trying to point out that immersion could be gained by forcing people to do things more close to reality. For instance, and a little bit off topic, I would love if airplane status (damage and engine wear) could be log and kept between sorties. That would change the way we fly. In Clod the server logged many of this thing and really changed the way you treated your plane in serious campaigns (like Hrcodwar, an scorched earth like campaign).

[Finkeren]

I do not really understand what the discussion is all about. some people want it, others don't. If you can do both then it is up to the Mission designer and nobody gets hurt. So what is all that fuzz about? If the devs say: impossible as very much development time needed for it or absolutely not what they want to do, fine by me, not a dealbreaker.

There would be no fuss, if not for a couple of people on either side desperately trying to turn this into a pissing contest.

 

I for one am just voicing my oppinion as for why I think such a feature is both un-historical and adds no gameplay value as well as trying to discern, why some people want it so badly that they'll create thread after thread asking for it.

 

I would consider it a waste of resources if the devs decided to model this feature, but I wouldn't throw a tantrum if it happened, and I would try it out as well, just to be sure I wasn't missing something.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Finkeren

[Chief_Mouser]

In FNBF missions the first flyers in the Il-2 group to be shot down often wait for quite a period at our home base for the other members of the squad to return - or respawn if they too are shot down (and not killed). This is so we can all go out again in a group rather than singly; there's safety in numbers  . Also, an aircraft that lands back at base is only available to go out again after a few minutes wait; a minor sort of rearm and refuel period.

So the chances are that I will spend at least 10 or 15 minutes in every two and a half hour mission sitting on the ramp. That's quite enough time out for me, in fact it's enough time to get another beer or two! I wouldn't want to be forced to sit out for half an hour or so unless the missions ran all day long.

Cheers.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

My personal best FNBF break achievement was cooking dinner, eating said dinner and drinking a vodka cocktail after being shot down early, and still coming back on time for the next sortie

[216th_Jordan]

It's more a gameplay than a realism feature, I guess that almost nobody would want to sit on the ramp for half an hour. Again, In multiplayer I guess that a lot of people like this feature as you get to keep your plane and take care of it. Lets say you have to wait 2 minutes in a given spot until your plane is rearmed/refueled/repaired and you are then allowed to taxi back to the runway and do another flight. You might aswell free your plane to another player by clicking "end flight", that is up to you.

 

I would not really understand why there is an argument against the implementation of such a thing (except that it takes too much resources). I can understand if people don't want to see it in some servers, but that is another thing.

[Finkeren]

I would not really understand why there is an argument against the implementation of such a thing (except that it takes too much resources).

That is literally my only objection, but it's an important one.

[216th_Jordan]

That is literally my only objection, but it's an important one.

True. I might have misunderstood you

[Finkeren]

True. I might have misunderstood you

I think the feature would be fairly unrealistic and not historical, but if some people think it really adds gameplay value, that's their call, as long as it isn't forced on anyone.

 

I'm in favor of adding paratroopers to the Ju 52, even if it makes little sense in historical Eastern Front scenarios, because it definately adds gameplay value and because massed paratroop attacks was something that was actually done by the Luftwaffe in WW2.

[Chief_Mouser]

I think the feature would be fairly unrealistic and not historical, but if some people think it really adds gameplay value, that's their call, as long as it isn't forced on anyone.

 

I'm in favor of adding paratroopers to the Ju 52, even if it makes little sense in historical Eastern Front scenarios, because it definately adds gameplay value and because massed paratroop attacks was something that was actually done by the Luftwaffe in WW2.

 

Just to stir the pot    but now how I wish we had the promise of a Mediterranean expansion and a map of Crete.  . Mind you, the RAF hardly existed over Crete so it wouldn't be much of a scenario apart from the mass drops of paratroopers - and fleets of gliders!

Cheers.

[Nocke]

Wasn't the threads title "why do I have to end mission always"? For me, it would enhance immersion if I could go for another flight without having to leave the airfield. I wouldn't worry about realistic RRR, but enjoy simply coming back, taxiing to a halt. Leave the plane there, go away 5 minutes later without actually exiting the mission, come back, find the plane rearmed and refueled and go off again. Dont know if I am explaining myself well ... Its all about not leaving the screen where you are still at the airfield. Perhaps just watching people land and take off, before you go again...

[Chief_Mouser]

Wasn't the threads title "why do I have to end mission always"? For me, it would enhance immersion if I could go for another flight without having to leave the airfield. I wouldn't worry about realistic RRR, but enjoy simply coming back, taxiing to a halt. Leave the plane there, go away 5 minutes later without actually exiting the mission, come back, find the plane rearmed and refueled and go off again. Dont know if I am explaining myself well ... Its all about not leaving the screen where you are still at the airfield. Perhaps just watching people land and take off, before you go again...

 

Yes that wouldn't be too bad. A 'virtual' rearming and refuelling rather than a 'realistic' one. Five minutes would be ok.

Cheers.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The devs of this Il-2 (I think it was them anyways) made a similar thing for the old one in their server manager. Once you landed and hit finish flight, a static version of your aircraft appeared on the airfield in the same position you left it. If you rejoined the mission with the same aircraft, you would respawn at that position, replacing the static aircraft with a proper one, rearmed and refueled. It was gimmicky but worked very well, and it had an air of context in the sense that you still finished the mission - as a pilot would - but used the aircraft you brought home. Sometimes aircraft were too crippled to taxi, so until someone spawned in it you'd have it blocking the runway for example, which is realistic.

 

An extra perk of that system was that the airfields ruled by this system only had the static aircraft available for grabs, so if during an air attack a bomb destroyed 8 out of 10 Bf-110s, you would only have two, bringing more purpose to airfield attacks than mad vulching.

[samson]

I'm curious why we can't rearm and refuel our aircraft without having to end a mission already?  We have all these beautiful runways and taxiways, parking, hangers, ammo dumps, fuel dumps, etc, yet we can't/don't really use any of it.  Make the airfields functional, to a degree, by having an area you can park and rearm and/or refuel.

 

Anyway, I wouldn't think it would be a hard feature to add.  Just a thought. 

As a view from my side, person who craped a lot of time doing SP missions, such little "goodies" certanly wil find their place in my toolbox. And, yeah, you can make gameplay more funny in SP mode with such stuff. 

Two hands up! 

Edited December 17, 2016 by samson

[Rolling_Thunder]

As a view from my side, person who craped a lot of time doing SP missions, such little "goodies" certanly wil find their place in my toolbox. And, yeah, you can make gameplay more funny in SP mode with such stuff. 

Two hands up! 

 

exactly. Why does it always have to be about MP? I can see the argument against it for MP. MP isn't really about realism, the vast majority of MP players are lone wolves. But in SP I can see the immersion this feature would bring. I wouldn't use it but that doesn't mean I'm against it. If others would like it, why not?

[Lusekofte]

 

 

I do not really understand what the discussion is all about. some people want it, others don't. If you can do both then it is up to the Mission designer and nobody gets hurt.

 

THIS is what I am trying to say, thank you 

[BraveSirRobin]

the vast majority of MP players are lone wolves.

This made me lol. Every single SP player is a lone wolf.

[Rolling_Thunder]

This made me lol. Every single SP player is a lone wolf.

 

Oh Robin.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

MP isn't really about realism,

 

In many servers here you are right. But in others it is. I frequent those who are, because SP in this game is not in my taste. In other games like DCS the culture is different, same in COD. This feature is used by great many people.

[tailwheel]

What would make ground activity 'profitable' in game is if you got extra points or achievements for going through the process. If you got points for landing and refueling/rearming/repairing, and if you got 1.5x mission points for flying in the plane again, and then 2x then 2.5x for every successful sortie with the same plane. That would incentivize people to do it. Make ground time long enough to be non trivial (90 sec) but not so long as to interfere with gameplay fun. maybe set the fueling rate so it would take 0.5 sec per % fuel load.

Even a simplified automation would be cool. A munitions truck and a tanker drive up. (20 seconds) some clanking sounds (20 seconds + fueling % time), trucks drive away (20 sec) and you are ready to go. Throw in repairs for free or .5 sec per % damage.

However this will make you a target for raiders, unless there are dedicated airfield defenders.

I would like to do it and it's part of why I play SP, because I like the takeoff/navigate/attack/navigate/land/taxi process. I wish the campaign startup included an option to start parked like in quick mission builder. I would spend the whole day in a single mission in SP. And make this available at any friendly base you land at.

you could set a stat for number of flights per plane, I'm sure somebody would be hankering to add that to their achievements shelf. But only add a flight count if you actually hit a target or met an objective (recon/re-supply/ para drop etc)

 

There is a limit to realism where it changes from being a game to being a chore. I don't mind gameplay compromise if it keeps things fun (in the right places, ie not in the FM/DM aspect but in the mission play). If you want people to play (read buy and invest $$) into this game you have to make it fun and interesting, not just accurate.

The real thing wasn't fun, so...

 

PS. I would plunk $$ down for dev time to add this functionality.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Tailwheelbrownbear

[Mmaruda]

No refuel and rearm is IL-2 tradition by now. Learn to like it.

[FuriousMeow]

It's a waste of development time that takes away from features that the majority will use. Very, very, very few people will ever use a rearm and refuel - repair is absolutely a-historical and never happened while the pilot sat around in it, a new plane was absolutely used in repair situations. Rearm and refuel was an incredibly rare event. Citing Rudel shows how rare it is.

 

Besides, they tried it in RoF and it never worked so it apparently isn't easy to do.

[deWaardt]

This topic pops up every 2-3 months. It's like a game of whack-a-mole.

 

I still don't get what people think this feature is gonna contribute to gameplay. It's not historical. It's not really useful for anything other than MP. Even in MP most people go for the quick action and won't spend more time than absolutely necessary on the ground, so people would either not use the feature, and if forced to they'd be taking shortcuts right across open fields or try to land directly on the rearm/refuel station to cut down on time spent on the ground.

 

Then there's the issue of how long this process would take. If it's instantaneous, it's sn immersion killer, and if it takes anywhere near a realistic amount of time, you are just artificially creating downtime in the game for no reason.

 

Bottom line: I think it's a silly idea.

Hehehe yea

I am guilty.

Landed by jet on the taxiway or on the parking lot itself so many times in DCS.

Ain't nobody got time to refuel when there's enemy jets all over the place.

 

 

 

But I would like to see it as an OPTIONAL feature.

Like, I could land on an airfield somewhere and rearm/refuel without respawning, but it isn't required. I can still just "End Flight" and respawn. Also, small damage could be repaired. I mean like, a leak radiator could be patched up (if the engine didn't get ruined as a result), some small bullet holes to some plates can be fixed etc. Obvious structural damage, a Swiss-cheese wing or seized engine isn't usually a quick-fix and can't be fixed. You'll have to end flight and get a new aircraft.

 

I would love to see that, would in my opinion increase the immersion historically correct or not.

But I don't miss it, and it doesn't have to be added.

 

 

But that's just my two cents.

Edited December 20, 2016 by deWaardt

[Finnsky]

Sorry for the necro but I just had the same question and stumbled across this thread.

 

I want to be able to rearm and refuel for a very simple reason: on a lot of mp servers certain planes are restricted to certain af. For example on wol the 190 in the fighter config is only available at the af that is the farthest away from the front. I don't have anything against this, since it brings some balancing. What I don't like is that I need to fly to the front for 15 minutes and waste 1/3 of my fuel. When I'm done with the sortie or out of fuel/ammo, I rtb to the closest af and teleport back to the af that is far away. I wouldn't mind sitting in a refueling area for 15 minutes, it would take me this long to fly back to the front anyway. I think it would add some sort of desire to keep your plane alive. Right now, unless playing on a server with limited planes like taw or being obsessed with your kda there is little reason to even land your plane when you can just eject and teleport back because you have to start at the farthest af anyways

[1stCL/Punkey]

 What I don't like is that I need to fly to the front for 15 minutes and waste 1/3 of my fuel.

 

What? Try to take 100% fuel and you´ll be able to stay up in the sky for another 90 mins.

[No601_Swallow]

OK. I'll add something. The devs turning on the placeholders already in the ME would benefit my squadron. Sometimes, our "ops" coop missions entail more than one flight. Having to land and take the same plane back up again (instead of a spanking new one fresh out of the factory) would add to our immersion. Presumably the mechanics of the R&R area (potentially the entire airfield) and the time delay would be customizable.

 

A related/complimentary feature would be for the game to store the state of your aircraft in a file, so that when you respawn you could - depending presumably on the server settings - take your old plane (or a clone) back into the skies.

 

In general, flexibility should be the watchword. New features are useful as much as and insofar as they allow different styles and aims for gameplay. In my humble opinon.

Edited March 14, 2017 by No601_Swallow

[IckyATLAS]

I would like the fuel and rearm feature but not just a waiting period before the plane is rearmed. I want to see the ammo and fuel trucks coming in and have the operation simulated in a certain way with people around the plane. That would be nice.

One nice feature would be going out of your plane and standing besides it when you have landed or crash landed but are alive. You can only jump out of your plane to parachute down. Strange you can't just get normally out.

[FuriousMeow]

Rearm and refuel only makes sense if each time your aircraft lands it counts as a sortie. Then you may as well just "end mission" anyway.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Do you really want to take a damaged plane back into the air and combat?

i mean you do not have to be shot to take damage
Just pull too many G's in IL2 and you damage wings and airframe
Then you land and rearm and take off again.
Later you again dive to 800kph and pull 10G and this time wings don't warp they Snap

Yes IL2 has structual damage from speed and over G .