Jump to content
Stray

Rearming and refuelling the aircraft

Rearming and refuelling the aircraft  

692 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we have an option to rearm/refuel and scramble again?

    • Yes
      593
    • No
      63
    • Whatever
      36


Recommended Posts

Id hapilly sit on an air field for 15 mins to refuel/rearm. But im logistic like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No please as high G moves stress the airframe and cause damage you can't see (even in IL2)

So why fly in a plane that might fall apart because last sorted you Exceeded the max G's a few times and cracked a wing.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long did it take to rearm and refuel the aircraft in real life? Certainly far more than 60 seconds. If this were implemented I'd want the timeframes to be realistic. It would be simpler to finish the mission and then reenter with a new aircraft.

 

If implemented, then with realistic time frames - anything else would be disappointing... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a great idea. It should work when parked in the parking and wait 1-2 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Po-2's rearmed and refueled rather quickly all night long, so it would be a good mechanic to have in place if we had the Po-2.

Worth the development time even if we had this aircraft? Probably not.

I'm not sure it applies to many other aircraft and the realities of operations in the field as others have indicated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, like a vast majority, am of the opinion that this is a paramount necessity, especially so in online play.

 

there is no downside to this, or any way it could be reasonably argued as something which would detract from the overall experience. 

 

 

instead, such a feature would be an exceptionally positive addition to the game, extending far beyond the obvious benefits towards realism and convenience. 

 

 

in a behavioral sense, this one feature holds the key to addressing one of the most pivotal issues with multiplayer today, which is how there is no reward or encouragement to act as non-disposable.

 

the current system promotes disposable behavior, such as "bomb and bail", largely because of how the psychological effect of having to unspawn is very little different from that of having to respawn

 

 

it would make perfect sense, that in order to attain a greater level of authenticity in player conduct, the possibility of rearming and refuelling be introduced

 

 

 

if the contrary argument is towards "realism" - it must be pointed out that the resulting behaviors from not having this feature are vastly more unrealistic than a faster-than-historical turnaround. 

 

firstly, there is the absurdity that the alternative to this, is to have airplanes stopping mid-runway so that instead of taxiing back, they magically disappear in a puff or nonsense...

 

then, there's the problem that airfields operations thus become exclusively outgoing, that is - you basically never see aircraft returning from the runway, and engine shutdowns are very rarely ever bothered with.

 

not very realistic now, is it?

 

moreover, without the option of R+R, every time a plane respawns, it nevertheless gets restored to perfect condition.  now, given how airfield fleets can be depleted, this effectively allows the benefit of instant REPAIRS to an aircraft.

 

now, anyone claiming that it would be unrealistic to rearm and refuel in as little as a few minutes has to contend with:  the alternative has the practical consequence that it allows full repairs to be conducted at an even more absurdly brief interval.

 

 

 

so there you have it - the argument of "it's not realistic" is flawed at best, and wholly absurd in my opinion.  as not having R+R causes vastly less realistic phenomena by consequence 

 

 

 

 

also, the numbers are there, and a tenfold majority does seem to see the sense of this and has voted in favour of such a feature.   so really, there is no question about it at all.

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's go over this again, shall we?

 

pros:

 

R+R would...

 

- provide tangible encouragement to bring an airplane back to base, whereas today the only real motive is role-playing

 

- offer a more realistic alternative to turnarounds than having airplanes magically disappear, only to pop back up again moments later

 

- address the unauthentic asymmetry of airfield ground operations, which is now almost exclusively outbound

 

- add a new element of mission design where forward bases can service planes brought in from the rear

 

- reward tactical decisionmaking when flying a plane from a rear base, allowing it to be serviced at a base closer to the front, in reward for survival

 

- disable the "instant repair" effect caused by respawning

 

- increase immersion and sense of purpose for players by a substantial amount, with uninterrupted game flow

 

cons:

 

- would perhaps take developers a few moments of their time

Edited by 19//Moach
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let's go over this again, shall we? Yeah, lets.

 

pros:

 

R+R would...

 

- provide tangible encouragement to bring an airplane back to base, whereas today the only real motive is role-playing Not inherent. "Role playing" is tangible encouragement on its own. Stats are tangible encouragements on its own. No need to create additional constructs.

 

- offer a more realistic alternative to turnarounds than having airplanes magically disappear, only to pop back up again moments later You're debating semantics. R+R is no more historic than "despawning" and certainly no more realistic than climbing in to a new plane.

 

- address the unauthentic asymmetry of airfield ground operations, which is now almost exclusively outbound While most operations are outbound (uhh... this is an airfield...) there are still plenty of inbound flights. You're attempting to create a problem out of something that isn't an issue...

 

- add a new element of mission design where forward bases can service planes brought in from the rear Feature creep. Requires more work than simple R+R. What's your goal here..?

 

- reward tactical decisionmaking when flying a plane from a rear base, allowing it to be serviced at a base closer to the front, in reward for survival How is this a pro again..? You're just listing tangential features/wants/desires.

 

- disable the "instant repair" effect caused by respawning Leaving an aircraft and climbing in to a second one prepped by your field crew is a lot more realistic than two minute repairs/reloads.

 

- increase immersion and sense of purpose for players by a substantial amount, with uninterrupted game flow R+R is totally lacks immersion to me. I also don't understand the gained "sense of purpose" you're describing.

 

cons:

 

- would perhaps take developers a few moments of their time 

 

TL;DR - you're constructing a pretense/agenda in your head, divining user intentions/actions like you have the server statistics to do so and you're basing the entire argument on your definition of immersion and realism.

 

What you propose is no more realistic, no less gamey and no less obscure than what already exists.

Edited by Space_Ghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to have R&R , of course faster than in reality. Many times I lost my only one limited plane because someone was faster than me after save landing and finished flight. BTW this refers to WOL on other not empty servers :) with dynamic campaigns like TAW or Random the R&R is not so needed function but I trust developers they would find clever way to use it too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A suggestion... make it so that kills/targets destroyed arent counted unless you make it back to an airfield and switch off the engine.

Instantly rewards teamwork, disincentivises reckless flying and provides strong encouragement to return to an airfield after completing a mission.

 

And adds a greater degree of immersion as you'll be much more invested in the flight, and gives an extra tactical layer of decision-making, if you've scored a kill or two or had a successful ground attack run, do you want to cut your loses and head home, or roll the dice and keep going at the risk of being shot down and losing all of it?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A suggestion... make it so that kills/targets destroyed arent counted unless you make it back to an airfield and switch off the engine.

Instantly rewards teamwork, disincentivises reckless flying and provides strong encouragement to return to an airfield after completing a mission.

 

And adds a greater degree of immersion as you'll be much more invested in the flight, and gives an extra tactical layer of decision-making, if you've scored a kill or two or had a successful ground attack run, do you want to cut your loses and head home, or roll the dice and keep going at the risk of being shot down and losing all of it?

 

 

having thought of this myself as well, I heartily endorse this product/service

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

startup procedure and R&R as optional for all should not be a problem. Giving people a choice is never a bad idea, but yet some do not like people to choose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having thought of this myself as well, I heartily endorse this product/service

Not sure it would work outside stat-padding servers. If anything it rewards safe stat-minded flying and discourages people from doing the necessary dirty work. Personal example, 99% of the time I'm either flying escort, flak suppression or air patrol over friendly assets. Those are ungrateful jobs where very often you need to sacrifice your rear end to keep someone else alive, with the odd kill on a sleeping bandit or AAA gun.

 

Points only for landed aircraft would create rankings that place the astronaut BnZ crowd as the be-all-end-all of the game while punishing those who often make it out alive but land a little short of the airfield because they had to put their aircraft in the line of fire to achieve their mission.

 

I mean, technically the only missions where landing is a requirement are transport and recon since somebody has to unload the cargo and photos.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can see your point. I fly ground attack exclusively and I've definitely had more takeoffs than landings... at least on a runway.

 

What is really needed is a way to stop the fighter jocks from Hartmanning around at 5k and ignoring the situation on the ground, and stopping my fellow bombers from recklessly dive-bombing with 1000kg bombs from treetop height or getting target fixated and carrying out suicide runs just for points and then being happy to fall to flak or hit a tree or something to save the effort of flying back to base.

 

Something that would force a round trip, rather than thinking 'guns dry/out of bombs/fuel/engine hit/whatever, I'll just hit the ground to deny someone a kill and then respawn and go again'.

 

Part of the problem (at least in my opinion) is that systems modelling is just at the level of a game and not a sim. So no fuel tank management, no navigation harder than using the HUD compass to pick a course and watch the GPS on the map until you get visual on the airfield; just trim for level flight (unless you feel like hitting auto-level and taking the effort out of that too) and set engines to cruise, then watch the horizon and scan for fighters.

 

If you had to land to refuel/rearm it would feel less 'gamey' and if you needed to get back to have your kills counted you'd be even more invested in your flight.

 

Going off at a tangent...

I'd love there to be more transport/cargo runs in MP, and I've been hoping for photorecon missions ever since I started playing. So I'd be more than keen to add those elements as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rearm/refuel would be handy and appropriately realistic for night Po-2 missions/single player campaigns.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~S~

 

Rearm and refuel, has been programed into dead is dead competitions, for as long as I can remember.

The reason, there are time outs...after you land! Refuel and rearm is programed shorter than the landing time out.

Advantage...you can get back in the air faster. disadvantage you can get killed.

 

This would be a fine addition, if its possible to program a server refly time out.

 

 

 

 

Mox

Edited by II./JG1_Schulte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish it would pass consideration, I really enjoyed it in DCS. Being able to watch the planes get loaded up with bombs and watching the suspension buckle under the added weight. Bombers already spend a decent amount of time starting up the engines, I'd be nice to see more than just aircraft's re-spawning.

 

But I can understand why it won't happen. Maybe in the next generation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still confused as to how it encourages RTB behaviour.  If someone does not believe in RTB'ing they will crash or bail out and get a new plane. If someones believes in RTB'ing then they will RTB and despawn to get a new plane. Having the option to stay in the plane and refuel/rearm does not have any impact on the decision to RTB.   Make it compulsory and you encourage the opposite behaviour 'Why RTB when it just make me wait for RR? I will just jump' 

I played the normal everyday ATAG server with this option and very few people bothered using it because it was pointless. As someone said, if you want to wait 2 minutes pretending you are being refueled then just wait 2 minutes and pretend you are being refueled. The only people who did use it were the score whores who wanted their stats to show they got X kills in their last sortie because doing RR and re-launching made the second launch count as still being the original sortie.  I do not believe in encouraging score whores because they are not team players. 

 

If you want RR it has to have a solid advantage eg in CLoD special events sometimes it was useful because it allowed you to refuel and re-arm at a front line base that did not allow spawning.  The alternative was to fly to a rear base and allow all the enemies to RTB before you got back.    Perhaps make a respawn take 4 minutes (warming engines is not the same as many ignore that)  and RR only 2  minutes.  In special events there were sometimes limited aircraft so if you despawned there was no new aircraft to respawn into or someone waiting for one of the limited slots might get your aircraft before you can hit the spawn button.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still confused as to how it encourages RTB behaviour.  If someone does not believe in RTB'ing they will crash or bail out and get a new plane. If someones believes in RTB'ing then they will RTB and despawn to get a new plane. Having the option to stay in the plane and refuel/rearm does not have any impact on the decision to RTB.   Make it compulsory and you encourage the opposite behaviour 'Why RTB when it just make me wait for RR? I will just jump' 

I played the normal everyday ATAG server with this option and very few people bothered using it because it was pointless. As someone said, if you want to wait 2 minutes pretending you are being refueled then just wait 2 minutes and pretend you are being refueled. The only people who did use it were the score whores who wanted their stats to show they got X kills in their last sortie because doing RR and re-launching made the second launch count as still being the original sortie.  I do not believe in encouraging score whores because they are not team players. 

 

If you want RR it has to have a solid advantage eg in CLoD special events sometimes it was useful because it allowed you to refuel and re-arm at a front line base that did not allow spawning.  The alternative was to fly to a rear base and allow all the enemies to RTB before you got back.    Perhaps make a respawn take 4 minutes (warming engines is not the same as many ignore that)  and RR only 2  minutes.  In special events there were sometimes limited aircraft so if you despawned there was no new aircraft to respawn into or someone waiting for one of the limited slots might get your aircraft before you can hit the spawn button.  

 

Pretty much this.

 

Only way to make RR usefull is to put up some serious penalties for those who don't do it and jump to get a new plane faster. Like insane death and bailout penalties. 

But people hate not being able to click start immediately. TAW on the first edition was pretty much deserted, partly because of such penalties. Now they tuned it down to a 5min death penalty.

Counting your ground kills only on switching off your engine on an airfield ? A lucky hit from AAA, belly land at 5km from your home field, I see a lot of potential frustration in that option.

 

Even what is mentionned above about frontline airfield dedicated to RR without the possibility to spawn there, I'm not sure if this will be a good solution at all. We know some people like to go vulching. And unless you put an unrealistic tonload of invulnerable AAA on these airfields, having planes sitting on the ground for 2min will be too tempting. And people will be more likely to fly 10 more minutes getting a fresh plane than loosing their lives trying to RR.

 

I'm still voting yes, because with the upcoming Coop mode for MP, this would be a good feature for it. 

But for regular MP purpose, I don't see how it could possibly make a good addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon all naysayers here should play CloD in the ATAG server for a few weeks, then rethink their opinions.

 

 

 

There is no need to impose penalties on failure to RTB.  They are not wild animals.

 

 

Also, it is not true that, as some claim "Most players don't WANT to RTB at all, so they wouldn't enjoy this" - If this were really true, It would be just as well that Berloga should have a continuously higher population than Wings of Liberty. For Berloga removes all the "boring parts" and puts you straight in the action.

 

The appeal of a server where full mission are possible must therefore, be larger to a vast majority of players.   

 

 

The fallacy of shifting the blame on the players themselves is an easy mistake.  It offers a simple explanation to a complex problem, albeit a nevertheless entirely incorrect one.

 

 

 

 

Anyways, I've made my point about this more than once, and you can see it all here:   https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/31903-ability-rearm-refuel-and-repair/?do=findComment&comment=524886

 

and some more food for thought here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/31903-ability-rearm-refuel-and-repair/page-3?do=findComment&comment=525521

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~S~ Fellas,

 

Vote #471 for Yes. Combat Flight Simulator.

 

Whereas Rearming, Refueling, and Repairing, are actual activities in the real world...

 

The basic implementing, of said activities, for the Simulation's fullest range of options...

 

And the fact that the use of said features, would be user/server decidable... well...

 

I vote Yes. It's very fun to RTB to RRR, or, to have Forward Arming and Refueling Points available.

 

 

My Two Cents,

 

"Jupp" ~S~ :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the "simulator" part should not be used as an argument supporting this feature, as it would be one of the most arcadish feature that we would have. Even despawning, going to toilet, respawning would probably simulate more closely what the real pilots did during R+R in real life. If you want to simulate it more historically, could go to your wife, give her a sortie report and file your claims, then climb back into your home cockpit and imagine that ground crew rearmed your plane while you were giving your combat report.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon all naysayers here should play CloD in the ATAG server for a few weeks, then rethink their opinions.

 

A few years back, I spent the better part of half-a-year flying ATAG.

 

In my experience, having that R+R did not encourage RTB behaviour. There were still plenty of rammings. Many pilots didn't care. And those that did end up being even more angry at cross-field-takeoff-collisions.

 

R+R is a nice feature, sure. But I would assert that it does not encourage a RTB mentality. I just don't think it would significantly change the behaviour on a popular quick-dogfight server.

 

On the other hand, both "limited aircraft-stock" and "no-return-no-points" do indeed contribute to a RTB attitude. But this is something that is handled through the scoring/accounting system, not the R+R mechanism.

 

 

 

I think the "simulator" part should not be used as an argument supporting this feature, as it would be one of the most arcadish feature that we would have.

 

Absolutely!

 

I would strongly recommend that any "R+R enthusiasts" watch this historical video:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see that we can ever agree Moach because your arguments for using R&R are all based on the concept 'There is no reason for anyone to RTB.'   whereas the very idea of not doing everything in my power to RTB despite engine damage and missing control surfaces is alien to me and to everyone I flew with or against in CLoD.   It probably goes hand in hand with your feeling that R&R must work because it made more people RTB in ATAG.   Those aforementioned people that I said I flew with & against that would never dream of not returning to their base are the same people that left ATAG to fly in more realistic servers because ATAG was just a War Thunder style fragfest before WT was even invented :-)     From my perspective, and I think Dietrich is the same,   the concept that R&R encourages RTB is just bizaar. I cannot see the connection you are trying to make.  It would appear to be only understandable by people that come from that ATAG/WT environment.

 

If 1C announce they have written the code and ask if we want it put into the game then I will say 'Hell yeah. Why not?'.  Same goes for someone saying they have managed to do the same using the Mission Editor tools but if you are asking 'Should we be asking 1C to to use their restricted development budget to do this.'  then I would answer 'No.  Is not useful enough.'

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I reckon all naysayers here should play CloD in the ATAG server for a few weeks, then rethink their opinions.

 

Well I never had that choise in COD, it´s only one engined fighters that had that option, bombs was not possible to R&R , and no ammo on two engined planes. I wish for this here, and I can not understand why people would not let me have the choice, All who do not want it, can respawn as before, it is so typical this community 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted YES due to ability to have missions with multiple tasks/objectives.

 

Example: escort transport planes to A, land at A refuel and rearm and go intercept or patrol designated area for enemy activity than get back to B.

Note! R&R to last up to 1min!

 

Or transport cargo to A, R&R at A and get back home or proceed to next task.

 

I think making mutiple tasks in single mission is very important therefore R&R is needed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For singleplayer/co-op I would love to have this feature. Especially with the new campaign mode and co op mode the way it is in 2018. Honestly though, this game isnt DCS but at least put the rearm and ability to select loadout for those of us not dead set on multiplayer (since many voted against this in MP)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see this in multiplayer, the devs are thinking about adding it from what I understand.

 

It's be nice to see something like CLOD with a fuel truck coming next to your aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2017 at 12:55 AM, =TBAS=Sshadow14 said:

No please as high G moves stress the airframe and cause damage you can't see (even in IL2)

So why fly in a plane that might fall apart because last sorted you Exceeded the max G's a few times and cracked a wing.
 

Why would you think I would perform such a silly manuever in the first place?

Last sorties I shot multiple planes down, and would have shot down even more but had no fuel. For that problem we used to have drop tanks, but not in this title. I landed at a forward airfield in hopes I can rearm and refuel and get back up, thats also a no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since I do not speak English, the translator has implemented that!

 

We fly with friends our own Coop campaign. On our last flight, we sighted a train while flying home. Because we were almost empty and did not know if we were still attacked. Let's continue with some ammo as reserve. We would like to have our aircraft recharged with fuel and ammunition. After that the train is destroyed. But we had to start a new coop and the train was not there anymore. Because the Coop campaign is dynamic. new ground targets and air targets are generated.

 

Edited by p_i_k_a_s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you are on MP, perhaps on a regular weekly squad night, and you land to RR at a frontal airfield.  But wait, you have sustained some battle damage (some holes in the wing or other damage, etc, etc).  No RR for you then, LOL, as your plane needs to be repaired mate, so off you go and find something else to do for 12 hours or maybe 24 hours or so, or more.  

 

What's that, you are fed up because the squad mates you are flying with did not get any battle damage and all of them take off again after RR for a sortie without you?  Shame, never mind, you can re spawn in at the rear airfield you originally took off from and fly on your own for a while.  Or you can wait for next weeks squad night to fly with your mates again.  Or you and all your squad mates can just spawn in again, without RR, for another sortie together like you always do.

 

How will it be decided how much battle damage is OK to take off with (any or none)?  Something else to be coded and modelled for each aircraft perhaps.

 

Voted no to RR.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited by 56RAF_Talisman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×