ability to rearm, refuel, and repair

[Lusekofte]

Kind of never flown R R , because this is in COD only for fighters, claiming it is not realistic is a bit far off, because exit the game , click on a menu and select a new plane got no points for realism either. 

We have to admit all of us that a combat flight simulation is a war simulator just as much as a flight simulator. It is made for playability as much for flying. People refusing other their wish for a RR is in my point of view selfish , because it is a feature we all can ignore. Those not liking it can do what they always done exit and choose a new plane.

I see no reason for anyone even commenting the issue if they do not like it.

Besides, us who do not rearm we get a extra bit of immersion, we will see a fueltruck refuling a plane when we taxi out, and that is pretty cool, like that from COD

[BraveSirRobin]

People refusing other their wish for a RR is in my point of view selfish

I don’t understand why you keep saying that, because it’s ridiculous nonsense. We all have things that we’d prefer that the developers make a higher priority. Me not wanting r/r is no more “selfish” than you wanting r/r.

claiming it is not realistic is a bit far off, because exit the game , click on a menu and select a new plane got no points for realism either. 

When you respawn you’re a different pilot in a different aircraft. That’s far more realistic than the silliness that is r/r.

[Lusekofte]

Your statement indicate that you know what kind of time the developers have. And you do not. Have a little faith in their ability to prioritise. For us players RR do not matter if we do not like it, only for those who do

[Corsair]

 

 

I don’t understand why you keep saying that, because it’s ridiculous nonsense. We all have things that we’d prefer that the developers make a higher priority. Me not wanting r/r is no more “selfish” than you wanting r/r.

 

 

Out of curiosity what would you want to see as a priority ?

[BraveSirRobin]

Your statement indicate that you know what kind of time the developers have.

No, it doesn’t. It implies that I know that the have very limited resources. And the reason I know that is because that’s what they keep telling us.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

It is you being selfish Robin. You want what you want clearly at no compromise. It could be done without an animation like what ATAG has done in another SIM which I would argue has more realistic options. It can be done with little man hours. A study level SIM has it in DCS without animation. We do not expect the BoX Devs to go further than what we are already used to in flight games from DCS to Warthunder. A simple script will do. If it's even possible. If I learn that they have to write a shit load of code, I'd still want it but understand why you wouldn't at that point.

 

There are so many game aspects to BoX that your realism argument is very poor. It's just your opinion that it isn't realistic which is still factually wrong as pilots did rearm and refuel in multiple theatres. It wasn't every sortie but often enough that your realistic argument from a historical fact standpoint is still incorrect. A fully trained crew will take pride in the speed in which they could turn an aircraft around. Their lives in certain theatres could depend on it.

 

BoX is low man on the totem pole for realism anyway so that is another hole in your argument. No clickable cockpit, trim reset for Russian fighters and not German. Missing systems in the damage model. No scale on a fuel leak just a big torrent of venting fuel. Wings spewing smoke like there is a fire from a few rifle calibre bullet strikes. We can turn our head around backwards with track IR. Zoom..... I could go on and on at the unrealistic bits especially the 10km aircraft spotting bubble which is my major gripe. That fix is a lot more man hours than giving me more bullets and gas so I am understanding and patient with that improvement.

 

Your realism argument is beyond poor. Fine no dramas you don't want it for "reasons". All your arguments against are bad though and you are probably in a losing argument. I expect that we will get our ability to refuel as it's been a standard SIM feature for a long time.

 

Not only are your arguments poor but your tone to fellow players is lacking. Flight simming is a tight community. It took me a long time to claw back from my own poor reputation I got from being a dick in my ACG group. Some still thin I'm a tool. Just saying that your actions in a tight group can stick for a good bit of time. Your call really bud.

Edited January 6, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[BraveSirRobin]

There are so many game aspects to BoX that your realism argument is very poor. It's just your opinion that it isn't realistic which is still factually wrong as pilots did rearm and refuel in multiple theatres. It wasn't every sortie but often enough that your realistic argument from a historical fact standpoint is still incorrect. A fully trained crew will take pride in the speed in which they could turn an aircraft around. Their lives in certain theatres could depend on it.

More ridiculous nonsense. No one has said that r/r didn’t happen. However, it was not common. And the people who want r/r have admitted that they don’t want it to take a realistic length of time. So my view that it’s unrealistic isn’t poor at all.

 

Just saying that your actions in a tight group can stick for a good bit of time. Your call really bud.

Threats are usually far more effective if the target actually cares about the consequences.

[Barnacles]

Personally I'm as indifferent to this 'feature' as it is possible to be but if it can be implemented in a non intrusive way and is something that you can give a stiff ignoring to without losing out on game time/putting yourself at a disadvantage I say put it in the game. Also if it is put in please for the love of God don't implement it in some cumbersome F key menu system like DCS. That is awful when playing in VR.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

More ridiculous nonsense. No one has said that r/r didn’t happen. However, it was not common. And the people who want r/r have admitted that they don’t want it to take a realistic length of time. So my view that it’s unrealistic isn’t poor at all.

 

 

Threats are usually far more effective if the target actually cares about the consequences.

 

 

Who says threat? Are your opinions worth any weight? From  realism perspective without bomb loading a fighter with bowser and armourer on standby can be a rapid turn around enough so that any minor time cuts are just another sim/game compromise to add to the already long list. <----- run on sentence but im drunk

 

I left the 71st in a silly tantrum they didn't deserve. You think they forgot? After that I joined ACG and joined with a cocky dickhead attitude many remember. Simming is a tight community and one of the best aspects of simming is the friend making potential and teamwork..... Right now you are not looking like a valued anything.... Years after these posts you BraveSirRobin will be remembered for your own words.

 

Your comments have no weight through your own record. You are rude and argue from a point you don't really believe for shits and giggles or you are not open to compromise. Neither really looks good on you as a team player or someone looking out for the good of the game. 

 

No dramas if you don't care. Going forward I know who to mute in forum and TS as inconsequential to the greater good.  For you this is a fun circular argument. Meh, no dramas. I expect I'll get my way on this.

Edited January 7, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[BraveSirRobin]

 From  realism perspective without bomb loading a fighter with bowser and armourer on standby can be a rapid turn around enough so that any minor time cuts are just another sim/game compromise to add to the already long list.

 

Sorry, but the current "compromises" don't compare to the r/r silliness.

 

 

 You are rude and argue from a point you don't really believe

 

 

I believe every word I have posted.  Also, I'm only rude to people who I've come to realize that I have no reason to respect.

Edited January 7, 2018 by BraveSirRobin

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Personally I'm as indifferent to this 'feature' as it is possible to be but if it can be implemented in a non intrusive way and is something that you can give a stiff ignoring to without losing out on game time/putting yourself at a disadvantage I say put it in the game. Also if it is put in please for the love of God don't implement it in some cumbersome F key menu system like DCS. That is awful when playing in VR.

Pretty much what I was about to write. I couldn’t care less for the most part but I’d be surprised if this wasn’t included in the next couple of years. Seems like it’d be nice to get a quick potty break in MP and/or not have to lose your slot in a packed server upon landing.

[BraveSirRobin]

Pretty much what I was about to write. I couldn’t care less for the most part but I’d be surprised if this wasn’t included in the next couple of years. Seems like it’d be nice to get a quick potty break in MP and/or not have to lose your slot in a packed server upon landing.

 

You don't lose your slot now.  Just don't exit the server.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

If you have RTB'd for fuel or ammo you have to exit the server. Usually not a big deal but if the server is full you can get locked out for quite a while which sucks. It's the only negative in MP regarding topping up. Like I said, not a major concern of mine.

[curiousGamblerr]

If you have RTB'd for fuel or ammo you have to exit the server. Usually not a big deal but if the server is full you can get locked out for quite a while which sucks. It's the only negative in MP regarding topping up. Like I said, not a major concern of mine.

What do you mean Murf? You just end flight and you're still in the server. You might lose your plane, but you definitely don't have to exit the server.

 

That said, I showed my support for this feature in this thread months ago and still have the same opinion.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Yes, poor wording. If you land and need to re-whatever you have to quit and restart. You lose the plane but more importantly your slot in the server and can be blocked from rejoining if the server is full.

[Barnacles]

Yes, poor wording. If you land and need to re-whatever you have to quit and restart. You lose the plane but more importantly your slot in the server and can be blocked from rejoining if the server is full.

I think you've overlooked something Murf. Either that or you have a bug in your system. Everyone I know can fly multiple sorties, with different planes or loadouts, one after the other without having to exit the server.

[BraveSirRobin]

Yes, poor wording. If you land and need to re-whatever you have to quit and restart. You lose the plane but more importantly your slot in the server and can be blocked from rejoining if the server is full.

That is not true. You only lose your slot on the server if you exit the server.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Ok, we are arguing semantics about something I'm not terribly concerned about now. My point is, if you land and need a new aircraft, which is the only way to rearm, refit, refuel, take a break for any reason, etc - you must exit the ARENA and get a new aircraft - while remaining active on the server from a technical point of view. It usually works flawlessly and is of little concern. On those occasions, however, when the server is full or, on certain servers it becomes unbalanced, you can wait a significant amount of time to receive a new aircraft while people with a faster or connection or lightning quick mousers get planes. It can be frustrating but I also have plenty to do around the house if I have to wait overly long to get back to flying. My MAIN point is; I suspect it will be in the game in a couple of years or less despite the arguments and the DEV's current disinterest in the feature because they do listen and implement things this community squeals about. I didn't mean to get more than ankle deep in this argument in the first place.

[BraveSirRobin]

Ok, we are arguing semantics about something I'm not terribly concerned about now. My point is, if you land and need a new aircraft, which is the only way to rearm, refit, refuel, take a break for any reason, etc - you must exit the ARENA and get a new aircraft - while remaining active on the server from a technical point of view. It usually works flawlessly and is of little concern. On those occasions, however, when the server is full or, on certain servers it becomes unbalanced, you can wait a significant amount of time to receive a new aircraft while people with a faster or connection or lightning quick mousers get planes.

I don’t know what server you’re playing on, but that’s not how it works on WoL. As long as there are spawn points with aircraft available you can fly. The server limit is only for how many are allowed on the server. Once you’re on the server you should have no problem getting a new aircraft. If other servers work differently, it is unlikely that r/r would change anything.

Ok, we are arguing semantics

BTW, I’m not arguing semantics, I’ve just never seen the situation that you’re describing.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Well I lost my plane few times (was 0 available before I landed at AF) just because someone took it after I finish flight. In that case I would like to r/r but it is not a notorious issue

[Royal_Flight]

It is you being selfish Robin. You want what you want clearly at no compromise. It could be done without an animation like what ATAG has done in another SIM which I would argue has more realistic options. It can be done with little man hours. A study level SIM has it in DCS without animation. We do not expect the BoX Devs to go further than what we are already used to in flight games from DCS to Warthunder. A simple script will do. If it's even possible. If I learn that they have to write a shit load of code, I'd still want it but understand why you wouldn't at that point.

 

Exactly, it shouldn't take long to add. And there are other features which need fixed, but would take much more time and effort to implement so if this would be relatively easy it's one of the features that could be added to tide us over between major updates.

All it needs is a screen with options. One of the relatively minor fixes that will improve the sim and arguably one that should have been there from the start.

 

More ridiculous nonsense. No one has said that r/r didn’t happen. However, it was not common. And the people who want r/r have admitted that they don’t want it to take a realistic length of time. So my view that it’s unrealistic isn’t poor at all.

 

No-one wants to wait hours between landing in an aircraft after a combat mission and taking off again with the tanks topped up and the ammo replenished, obviously.

But no-one complains about how little time it takes to land an aircraft, taxi to dispersals, park, switch off, climb out, hand over to the mechanics, debrief, get taken to a new aircraft, walk-around, climb in and get your gear stowed before conducting pre-flight checks.

So surely, from a realism point of view, despawning/respawning should take a similar length of time, maybe 45mins or so?

Does that sound fair?

For added realism the mechanics should start the engine themselves and run it to warm it up before you get there so you should have to wait for that too.

If that seems reasonable then I'm happy to wait for my own aircraft sitting next to yours to be rearmed and refuelled, and we can race each other back into the skies.

If you're prepared to accept the realism hit of your old plane disappearing and you instantly teleporting to a fresh one that is magically sitting just off the taxiway, in the space of a few seconds, then your argument about how unrealistic it would be for r/r only to take a few seconds totally disintegrates.

 

Threats are usually far more effective if the target actually cares about the consequences.

I believe every word I have posted. Also, I'm only rude to people who I've come to realize that I have no reason to respect.

Ah, grow up, kid. No-one's impressed by people acting hard on the internet.

 

Well I lost my plane few times (was 0 available before I landed at AF) just because someone took it after I finish flight. In that case I would like to r/r but it is not a notorious issue

This is another advantage that staying in the same aircraft would bring. In addition, one could take an aircraft from a rear aircraft, use it in combat and then land to r/r at a forward airfield closer to the front lines to get back into the action quicker.

It's also been touched on earlier in this thread of the opportunities for gameplay this offers up - operating out of a forward airfield to support operations, especially for bombers who tend to start at rear airfields; or as a method of introducing supply runs where a cargo aircraft can land, offload and then use r/r to 'pick up' more cargo, or 'casualties' tied to a mission objective.

Or, especially when co-op gets here, make for a long scenario where each pilot has one aircraft and while they can use r/r, can't repair or swap out for a fresh aircraft so all damage is cumulative - leading to pilots carefully sheparding their aircraft as each loss is a serious blow.

This could help convey the urgency and risk faced by the VVS in the early part of the war in the East, or by the Luftwaffe in the later years.

 

All good for thought.

[DD_Arthur]

Exactly, it shouldn't take long to add. And there are other features which need fixed, but would take much more time and effort to implement so if this would be relatively easy it's one of the features that could be added to tide us over between major updates.

All it needs is a screen with options. One of the relatively minor fixes that will improve the sim and arguably one that should have been there from the start.

 

 

Are you a programmer familiar with the code of the Digital Nature Engine?  I would suggest you have absolutely no idea how difficult or time consuming this would be.

 

As to your other thoughts;  Why would you want to take an aircraft from a rear airfield, use it in combat and then land and r + r at a forward base to "get back into the action quicker" when you could just spawn from a forward field anyway?

 

If bombers tend to start at rear airfields that is because the mission designer has made it that way.  Picking up more cargo or 'casualties'?  Again;  another possibly time consuming excersize in programming and resources foistered on the devs.

 

Useful for coops?   

[BraveSirRobin]

If you're prepared to accept the realism hit of your old plane disappearing and you instantly teleporting to a fresh one that is magically sitting just off the taxiway, in the space of a few seconds, then your argument about how unrealistic it would be for r/r only to take a few seconds totally disintegrates.

No, it doesn’t. Just pretend that you’re a totally different pilot in a totally different plane and the realism is back to 100%.

[curiousGamblerr]

As I've been reading about the Night Witches, it seems if we ever hope to recreate that scenario this feature is necessary. Those pilots would begin the night by flying to a forward auxiliary field from which they would perform 10 or more short sorties per night before returning to their rear airfield to sleep during the day. They describe sitting in their cockpits while being rearmed and refueled, often dozing off for a few minutes before taking off for another bombing run. They were not, however, repaired, and I continue to think this feature would be great for fuel and armament but repairing an aircraft is a step too far.

 

In any case, that's just one scenario, but if the Po 2 project is a success, it makes this feature all the more attractive.

 

PS I agree with Arthur on one point tho: if you ever find yourself typing "should be easy" in regards to a new feature, stop, and hold down the backspace key. None of us have a clue without seeing the code.

[Royal_Flight]

Are you a programmer familiar with the code of the Digital Nature Engine? I would suggest you have absolutely no idea how difficult or time consuming this would be.

 

As to your other thoughts; Why would you want to take an aircraft from a rear airfield, use it in combat and then land and r + r at a forward base to "get back into the action quicker" when you could just spawn from a forward field anyway?

 

If bombers tend to start at rear airfields that is because the mission designer has made it that way. Picking up more cargo or 'casualties'? Again; another possibly time consuming excersize in programming and resources foistered on the devs.

 

Useful for coops?

I'll happily admit, I have no idea how long such an addition might take.

But, less time than a new flyable aircraft? Less time than a new map?

I'd wager yes.

Less time than new metallic textures or canopy raindrop effects?

No idea, but the devs see fit to spend time on minor improvements as well as major ones, and I trust their ability to tune-manage should a feature like this be implemented on future.

 

It *shouldn't* take long to add. *If* this would be relatively easy it *could* be added.

If not then I can wait for a more major update, if that's what this might be.

 

As for other thoughts: it depends on the scenario as to why you might want to change airfields. A long-running multiplayer session with a dynamic frontline, allowing you to shuttle assets around the map or get closer/further as the battle ebbs and flows.

Think post-Op Overlord, where 2TAF fighter-bombers flew to forward airfields in the morning to be close to the troops who needed CAS, and then back to southern England in the evenings. Or fighters moving to dispersed fields to avoid bombing.

Or, a part of a singleplayer mission where a single afternoon could see a defensive sortie against waves of event aircraft, followed by rearming to get back up to chase down stragglers or escort friendly bombers on the way back.

Or, anything that mission designers want to do, limited only by creativity.

 

Maybe if a mission designer puts bombers at the rear that's where they want the bombers, for now.

With the option of r/r, mission designers can have more options and missions become less linear, restrictive and predictable. And I have faith in mission designers to take advantage of the added freedom.

 

Cargo and casualties won't require any dev input as currently, the Ju 52, the only cargo aircraft can only drop off cargo but cannot pick it up. Letting it 'rearm' with cargo means that each trip can be more than one-way.

Casualties, sane deal. Fly to an airfield, 'rearm' and there's the pickup made. Now get to somewhere else to drop the 'casualties'.

Suspend your disbelief if need be, but still requires less imagination than flying an empty plane in circles around a map for no reward and having to pretend you're contributing something.

Again, allowing mission designers to create scenarios with more options to support whatever emergent gameplay people can think of.

Especially as there have been few moves towards supporting cargo operations officially, to date.

 

And, anything you find funny about using a possible future gameplay option (r/r) in a confirmed upcoming game mode (co-op)?

If so I'm missing it.

 

I'm proposing suggestions for ways r/r could be used, as the main thrust of the argument against including this feature seems to be 'I don't want time spent on this because I can't think of a use for it'. For those people, there are some quick top-if-the-head suggestions for how this could be utilised.

I'm all in favour of giving more people more options.

For the others who's argument is 'I don't want this because I just don't want this' then there's not much I can offer other than try not to be so closed-minded, give it a chance and see what happens.

 

No, it doesn’t. Just pretend that you’re a totally different pilot in a totally different plane and the realism is back to 100%.

Now we've crossed the event horizon of stupid suggestions.

That's the best you've got, that your idea of 100% realism is WWII pilots that can switch identities at will?

 

You've given it a solid effort, but maybe it's time to stop.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Royal_Flight

[BraveSirRobin]

Now we've crossed the event horizon of stupid suggestions.

That's the best you've got, that your idea of 100% realism is WWII pilots that can switch identities at will?

You've given it a solid effort, but maybe it's time to stop.

First of all, it isn’t a suggestion. Second of all, you’re not a WW2 pilot. You’re pretending to be a WW2 pilot. There is no reason for you to think you’re the same pilot every time you take off. In fact, it makes no sense at all in many situations we see in MP. Would you take off again immediately if you were wounded? Had to ditch? Bail out? Of course not. In fact, you might not fly again if you flew a perfectly clean mission with no problems. Meanwhile, we might fly 5 or 6 missions in a 3 hour period in MP. The ONLY way that makes any sense at all is if we’re playing the role of a different pilot every time we take off.

 

If you’re too dense to understand this concept, then maybe it’s time for you to stop.

[curiousGamblerr]

... You’re pretending to be a WW2 pilot. ...

 

I hesitate to get into this again with you BSR, because we've both made our opinions clear and there's no use beating on each other but... doesn't this cut both ways? Seems this statement works as justification for unrealistically short R&R times, lack of animated trucks and ground crew, etc. which you've argued make this feature moot.

 

I really don't understand your commitment to arguing against this anyway. It's not like the devs jump at our beck and call- they're going to make the sensible decision as far as prioritizing new features, and obviously this is not at the top, so I don't understand why you're so against people simply discussing the possibility. It makes this whole thread really unpleasant when we could just be happily fantasizing about a thing that may or may not happen in time.

[BraveSirRobin]

I hesitate to get into this again with you BSR, because we've both made our opinions clear and there's no use beating on each other but... doesn't this cut both ways? Seems this statement works as justification for unrealistically short R&R times

How does it do that? You’re pretending to be a pilot. The developers try to make our pretend experience as realistic as possible. In some cases that isn’t always possible, so they do the best that they can. But for r/r it’s absolutely possible. There is no technical reason why you can’t sit there for 20 minutes waiting for fuel and ammo. It’s just that no one wants to do that. And I’m sorry, but if the realistic implementation of a feature is something that no one wants, then the feature shouldn’t be added.

[Royal_Flight]

First of all, it isn’t a suggestion. Second of all, you’re not a WW2 pilot. You’re pretending to be a WW2 pilot. There is no reason for you to think you’re the same pilot every time you take off. In fact, it makes no sense at all in many situations we see in MP. Would you take off again immediately if you were wounded? Had to ditch? Bail out? Of course not. In fact, you might not fly again if you flew a perfectly clean mission with no problems. Meanwhile, we might fly 5 or 6 missions in a 3 hour period in MP. The ONLY way that makes any sense at all is if we’re playing the role of a different pilot every time we take off.

 

If you’re too dense to understand this concept, then maybe it’s time for you to stop.

First of all, my mistake, do forgive me. It's not a suggestion, just a stupid statement full stop.

Secondly, you're allowed to play the game however you want to but extrapolating your play-style into an argument doesn't work.

Specifically, crying 'realism' as an excuse not to implement r/r because of the time it takes, then using a handwave-y game logic justification to excuse yourself from having to stick to the same standards.

Your point basically boils down to 'r/r has to be realistic, you have to wait 20mins for it, oh by the way I can de/respawn at will because it's just a game'.

 

As I say, how you enjoy the game is up to you and you can think what you want about how to rationalise the average multiplayer session. But you've gotten yourself confused, either through ignorance or hypocrisy which is why your argument doesn't stand up.

 

How does it do that? You’re pretending to be a pilot. The developers try to make our pretend experience as realistic as possible. In some cases that isn’t always possible, so they do the best that they can. But for r/r it’s absolutely possible. There is no technical reason why you can’t sit there for 20 minutes waiting for fuel and ammo. It’s just that no one wants to do that. And I’m sorry, but if the realistic implementation of a feature is something that no one wants, then the feature shouldn’t be added.

If you're so concerned with realism, if you're going to insist on an arbitrary time limit for me to sit there waiting for r/r by your own admission you should be logging off after landing. And if you bail I'd expect you to wait at least a few days for your pilot to walk back to your own lines.

There's no technical reason why you can't sit there and wait for friendly ground forces to find your pilot, its just that you don't want to do that.

 

As you're happy to magically teleport between different pilots (the ONLY way that makes any sense at all, remember?) then r/r can take a minute. Two, tops.

 

Claiming 'the realistic implementation of a feature is something that no-one wants' is pretty presumptuous. And using that fallacious non-argument to say that this shouldn't be added is another logic misfire.

 

The only argument of yours that has had any merit is not wanting the devs to spend time on this feature, which is fair. But you've seemingly abandoned that in favour of 'I don't want this, therefore no-one should have it'.

It's fine not to want something, and we all get that you want to voice your opinion (empty vessels something something) but it's led you down this dead end where you'v gotten lost, and it's time to stop digging.

 

I'll let the word 'dense' hang in the air between us.

 

We've probably said all there is to say anyway.

[BraveSirRobin]

Blah...blah...blah...

 

Yeah, it’s pretty obvious that trying to reason with you is pointless.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

Secondly, you're allowed to play the game however you want to but extrapolating your play-style into an argument doesn't work.

 

-snip-

 

Yeahhhh... About that... 

[ACG_Smokejumper]

First of all, it isn’t a suggestion. Second of all, you’re not a WW2 pilot. You’re pretending to be a WW2 pilot. There is no reason for you to think you’re the same pilot every time you take off. In fact, it makes no sense at all in many situations we see in MP. Would you take off again immediately if you were wounded? Had to ditch? Bail out? Of course not. In fact, you might not fly again if you flew a perfectly clean mission with no problems. Meanwhile, we might fly 5 or 6 missions in a 3 hour period in MP. The ONLY way that makes any sense at all is if we’re playing the role of a different pilot every time we take off.

 

If you’re too dense to understand this concept, then maybe it’s time for you to stop.

 

Do you not know about the 50 mission challenge? Pretty normal to think of every sortie as your same character.

The 50 mission challenge has been around awhile and across multiple sims.

Edited January 10, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[BraveSirRobin]

Pretty normal to think of every sortie as your same character.

No, it isn’t. We often fly as many as 5 or 6 missions in a 3 hour span. Bail out. Fly again. Ditch. Fly again. Wounded. Right back into the air. It’s actually absurd to think of every mission as the same character.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Ah so you are a new simmer and do not know of the 50 mission challenge which is quite old.

There are many players who try it. Quite fun actually.

 

Your math is off in your sorties by the way. The only way to crack out that many is to get shot down. I've gone through whole tanks of fuel many, many times. By the time I land it's over an hour. Sometimes well more. Even in a short range Spitfire draining a tank takes an hour and a half.

 

On some maps the objectives are so close together they are almost in artillery range. This isn't realistic either but gives you more chance at flying and fighting for fun instead of the realistic 30 minutes out fight a few minutes and 30 minutes home. This is with a short range aircraft like a Spitfire or 109. The P40 has a 750NM range according to the below site.

 

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_p40_en.php

 

Ever fly it like a real combat mission? Hours in a seat where you might need to piss in a bottle?

 

 

You do know that in many theatres it wasn't uncommon to be pumping out multiple sorties in a day. Considering that the day in game is sped up a couple of sorties in a map isn't that unrealistic. Not any more unrealistic than the sped up rotation of the planet for game sake.

 

On the r/r times....... Here is a citation....

 

Found a citation for the Malta battle of turn around times under 10 minutes.

 

From Hurricanes Over Malta by Cull and Galea:

 

On the morning of 9 May. 64 Spitfires destined for Malta took off from the decks of the carriers USS Wasp and HMS Eagle and, this time, Malta was ready for them. The AOC decided that if the aircraft arrived in moderately serviceable condition and in daylight, it should be possible to re-arm and refuel them within ten minutes, thus avoiding a repetition of the damage inflicted following the previous delivery. Five ground crew were to be allocated to each aircraft pen. As soon as the long-range tanks were removed and the fighter refuelled and re-armed, it would take off. this time with an experienced "Malta hand' at the controls.

 

Meanwhile, the initial batch of Spitfires had got down safely: a few were refuelled within four minutes, the remainder within seven, with pilots strapped in the cockpits ready to scramble.

 

 

All of a sudden with sped up time which is in BoX already and that a quick turn around is possible under certain conditions having a 5 minute wait on an r and r isn't more unrealistic than any other compromise made for fun.

 

 

Your argument for realism is easy to poke holes in because this isn't realistic in any way. It's a game. 

 

My campaign in ACG does the closest to real of anyone else right now. One sortie one life on one day. After action reports, chain of command etc etc.

 

I find more merit in your resource argument but if r&r can be implemented minus animations and little time lost that isn't solid either.

Edited January 10, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[BraveSirRobin]

Ah so you are a new simmer and do not know of the 50 mission challenge which is quite old.

There are many players who try it. Quite fun actually.

Unless it explains how a badly wounded pilot can fly 5 sorties in 3 hours, it’s completely irrelevant.

 

I’ve been playing flight sims since the 80s.

[BraveSirRobin]

Your math is off in your sorties by the way. The only way to crack out that many is to get shot down. I've gone through whole tanks of fuel many, many times. By the time I land it's over an hour. Sometimes well more. Even in a short range Spitfire draining a tank takes an hour and a half.

 

Try flying VVS. The aircraft don’t have much ammo. You might be headed back for more in a few minutes. 5-6 sorties in 3 hours is not unusual. In any case, we also fly immediately after being wounded. You’re not the same character every time you go up.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

I mostly fly VVS thanks. I fly short side. Most of my time is in a P40 according to the Wings stats. The low ammo count is irrelevant. If you where playing on a realistic map it would not be a five minute flight for a fight unless it was to intercept a raid on your field but no one likes vulchers except me it seems. I love the explosions on the field. So fun.

 

I just left the spawn pad apron when a Ju88 dropped the lot. It shook my screen and my forcefeedback. It was epic! If there was not vulchers I'd not have experienced that but perhaps I'm just weird.

 

I'm in a German Staffel for Cliffs of Dover hence the tags but I like all the aircraft. 

 

I do see your point on the not same guy but I think you are in the minority there. There are campaigns stretching back more than a decade in flight simming which do not agree with your sentiment either.

 

You do like to move the goal posts eh.   

Edited January 10, 2018 by 7./JG26_Smokejumper

[BraveSirRobin]

You do like to move the goal posts eh.   

I did nothing of the sort. Goal posts are right where they started.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

No, your argument has changed after holes got poked in it.

 

Your stance is the same of course which is more than fine.

 

Thanks for the chat, have a nice evening.

[BraveSirRobin]

No, your argument has changed after holes got poked in it.

 

 

 

That's a complete load of crap.