PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, host able to control fuell quantity



Aztek_Eagle
09-11-2004, 12:58 AM
the host shuld be able to control fuel quantity, or at least an option for player controled, or full fuel tanks always, during online play, you play campains offline wiht fueltanks full , and the dogfight are very soft, wiht not those joystick freaks of online play, just a idea.....

Aztek_Eagle
09-11-2004, 12:58 AM
the host shuld be able to control fuel quantity, or at least an option for player controled, or full fuel tanks always, during online play, you play campains offline wiht fueltanks full , and the dogfight are very soft, wiht not those joystick freaks of online play, just a idea.....

Korolov
09-11-2004, 01:47 AM
Oh no, we definately don't want this.

1) With the size of most maps, especially online, the amount of fuel needed is NEVER a specific amount for all planes. If the host forces everyone to have 50% fuel, then planes like the Fw-190 and Bf-109 will suffer due to insufficient fuel; planes like the P-51, P-47 and P-38 will suffer because they have too much fuel.

2) Some planes will take drop tanks - so if the host wants players to have fuel problems, taking drop tanks will top off the fuel and the player can then ditch the drop tank. This will only nullify half of the above problem (since the P-## birds mentioned don't need that much fuel.)

The host doesn't need to specify the amount of fuel; that should be entirely up to the player. A fighter in the interceptor role will need less fuel than one in a ground attack role, since in ground attack you know for sure you're going to get hit, and more often than not you get a fuel leak. Having a large fuel reserve helps to get the jabo home while a small fuel reserve gives the interceptor the agility it needs.

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

kostek
09-11-2004, 03:20 AM
Oh yeah we need it!!!
If this limitation could be done by host, attacking AF will have bigger sense (specialy on VEF, VWF, BW).
Also VWF spits taking off from Normandy, not from England (as it should be) should have fuel limitation.
So Oleg we really need it!!!

NN_Tym
09-11-2004, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Oh no, we definately don't want this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WE ? You speak in MY name ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1) With the size of most maps, especially online, the amount of fuel needed is NEVER a specific amount for all planes. If the host forces everyone to have 50% fuel, then planes like the Fw-190 and Bf-109 will suffer due to insufficient fuel; planes like the P-51, P-47 and P-38 will suffer because they have too much fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The fuel amount should be per flight of course. The FMB can specify the fuel amount for any AI plane. It would be nice to have it set at the same level for any human controlled plane.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>2) Some planes will take drop tanks - so if the host wants players to have fuel problems, taking drop tanks will top off the fuel and the player can then ditch the drop tank. This will only nullify half of the above problem (since the P-## birds mentioned don't need that much fuel.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Clearly if you want to control fuel amount, you want to control availability of drop tanks... Here again a host, or rather a mission setting, should force the human player to take he plane with whatever fuel quantity the scenario set for him.

It should be true for bombs, rockets, etc. Some planes are dated 1942, and are transformed into 1944 planes by using some additional armament that were available much later.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The host doesn't need to specify the amount of fuel; that should be entirely up to the player. A fighter in the interceptor role will need less fuel than one in a ground attack role, since in ground attack you know for sure you're going to get hit, and more often than not you get a fuel leak. Having a large fuel reserve helps to get the jabo home while a small fuel reserve gives the interceptor the agility it needs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This would be good for online coop missions.

In such missions, every human starts at the same moment. If you can select the amount of fule you can get, then everybody knows when the players will be forced to land, due to fuel limitations.

So, you can't have very different scenarios. Imagine that the human cannot change his fuel setting, you could portray a mission where some flight is on his way back, short on fuel, and must decide wether they must engage or not.

You could also avoid some behaviours, such as... I wait until all the Yaks have landed to begin my strike in an empty sky.

For campaigns it is even more interesting, as you could have fuel stocks to take care of.

It would be a definitive plus for coop missions and campaigns.

NN_EnigmuS
09-11-2004, 06:03 AM
so if you want accuracy in reality every squad choose is fuel for the mission he want,and do what he want with the time he had like in reality


or you forced player having fuel limitations and you kill the immersion fact and reality as not all plane had same time of flying

if in a campaign you are in yak and don't want other people knowing how many time you will fly just take off when you want lol,or take a yak9d or don't know in a lagg take drop tank as in a 109 too
etc...

straffing always exist as in real life and you can use fuel ability in all side so...

as yak9d had 1h more than 109
as fw had 1h more than yak1b,3
as US plane had much more fuel than german one etc....

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/signyak/enigmus.gif

NN_Tym
09-11-2004, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
so if you want accuracy in reality every squad choose is fuel for the mission he want,and do what he want with the time he had like in reality<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is not THAT simple Enigmus. In reality, it was NOT possible to fill the tanks with as much fuel as the pilots wanted.

For example, it was common practise for transfert flights, to fill the tanks with just as much fuel that was needed in the VVS. Fuel shortage was also a very important feature of the last years of the war for the Luftwaffe.

But there is an even bigger problem with FB/AEP in coop missions : every flight begins the mission at the same time. So you know just how long will your enemy will be able to fly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>or you forced player having fuel limitations and you kill the immersion fact and reality as not all plane had same time of flying<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For me, fuel setting forced by the mission design would enhance immersion.

You could recreate a lot of situations that could be done with SDOE mission builder for example. I remember a mission were you had to return to your base with no ammo left and very few fuel in the tanks. It was very immersive. You cannot do that in FB/AEP...

The immersion killer, for me, is the fact that all planes start at the very same moment, and every pilot KNOWS it. I don't want to know how long my enemies can remain airborne.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if in a campaign you are in yak and don't want other people knowing how many time you will fly just take off when you want lol<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is not an option for me. It would seem like "gaming the game" to me. But, if a mission briefing orders me to do so, I will... And I did.

I also think it would be a stupid feature to force, as most objectives in FB/AEP can be set with a time limit, that can add a lot to realism.

Anyway, most online campaigns don't allow such behaviour... Some even forbid it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>or take a yak9d or don't know in a lagg take drop tank as in a 109 too
etc...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again, this is not an option for a serious coop mission or campaign. A pilot did not choose his plane in those days. He was sent to a unit, and flew whatever it had.

In a dogfight, anything can do. I simply don't care. But this fuel limitation feature would open a lot of opportunities for mission building (both online and offline), coop missions and campaigns.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>straffing always exist as in real life and you can use fuel ability in all side so...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure it did...

BUT all the flights did not start at the same time.

BUT the name of all flying pilots did not appear on the windscreen.

BUT the pilots did not know which planes they would face.

BUT they did not know when they would face them, nor if they could simply avoid them by using their superior range.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>as yak9d had 1h more than 109
as fw had 1h more than yak1b,3
as US plane had much more fuel than german one etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe because those planes were built with a purpose... That cannot be portrayed, so far, in FB/AEP !

Aztek_Eagle
09-11-2004, 01:59 PM
good you guys agree in some part wiht me, thats what i liked about cfs2, soft turning dogfights, well till idiots came up wiht fuel dump, but good oleg has such a security on the game against cheaters http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, i have been whining about this for ages

Korolov
09-11-2004, 02:02 PM
If it is implemented (unlikely) I hope they give hosts the option NOT to use it...

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

VMF513_Sandman
09-11-2004, 09:07 PM
i'd like to have that option...handling is different with fuel weight. forcing no less than 50% would most likely make em fly the plane as it was intended.

VW-IceFire
09-11-2004, 10:59 PM
Only a good idea with a comprehensive way to control and expand or limit weapon and fuel availability across the board.

Not so that it limits players or mission designers but so that it increases the level at which they can work. So if only 500lbs bombs on a P-38 are available thats all you get...if the Spitfire has to take a Slipper Tank along then it has to take a Slipper Tank.

Depends on the scenario. But just one feature is silly in this regards. It needs to be a overall part of a feature with a number of applications and ways of making things interesting.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

crazyivan1970
09-11-2004, 11:27 PM
I think it should be not in the hosts hands, it should be in the game engine hands. Meaning as those objects are being destroyed by bombs shortage appears. And as IceFire mentioned, should be for everything... ammo, fuel and most importantly planes.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.