PDA

View Full Version : Rearm, Refuel, Repair



Stackhouse25th
05-16-2006, 05:07 PM

96th_Nightshifter
05-16-2006, 06:09 PM
I agree with you, this would be more realistic than just hitting "Refly", not to mention more fun; not only seeing how long you can stay alive but also how long you can stay alive in the same aircraft instead of hittin refly and getting a brand new one.

Hoarmurath
05-16-2006, 06:25 PM
If you want realism, these feature are definitely to be avoided.

But they would be perfect for an arcade game.

You know, these planes aren't modern days formula ones, it take some time to refuel/rearm/repair them. I don't think you want to wait a couple hours (at least), before reflying?

LEXX_Luthor
05-16-2006, 07:02 PM
This is a great idea backed up by short Re-Arm and Re-Fuel for most WW2 tactical aircraft, but expect to be spammed with Sloppy jokes and hostile insults from some of our Old Timer "online" dogfight players. These Online gamer's webboard behavior is so predictable -- watch them post that ReArm/ReFuel is "arcade" and make jokes about "health points" and "power ups." The sad thing, ReArm and ReFuel replacing Oleg's Arcade Instant Refly would finally cause the historical vulnerabilities of Me-262 to be seen where landing and takeoff are the worst times for Me-262, with no Arcade Instant Refly to bypass the Me-262 landing procedure.

Sadly, with no ability to engage these Online players in real conversation on this idea, I can only guess they fear the Online servers taking away the Arcade Instant Refly.

I'd say limit <span class="ev_code_yellow">Repair</span> to only the most minor damage, like say, a jammed machine gun possibly.

LEXX_Luthor
05-16-2006, 07:07 PM
Good backup...

Grupul 8 Asalt::

During the first days of November, the Romanian Henschel pilots practically saved the 24th Infantry Division, which was retreating followed closely by Soviet forces. <span class="ev_code_yellow">They managed to fly about 15-16 missions per day each!</span> No other Romanian group made as many sorties in one day, as the 8th Assault Group did then. There was always a patrul (Romanian for Schwarm) in the air covering the infantrymen. Thus they managed to rescue the lives of more than 10,000 men. Five assault aircraft were lost, as were two pilots. The other three were rescued by their comrades.


http://www.worldwar2.ro/arr/g8as_03.JPG


Grupul 8 Asalt ~> http://www.worldwar2.ro/arr/g8as.htm

And, November has very short days in Eastern Europe.

Chivas
05-16-2006, 07:20 PM
This option would definitely pump some needed immersion and fun into any combat flight sim. It just an option if you don't like don't use it. I'm sure there will still be the magic refly buttom option for those that require it.

Stackhouse25th
05-16-2006, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
If you want realism, these feature are definitely to be avoided.

But they would be perfect for an arcade game.

You know, these planes aren't modern days formula ones, it take some time to refuel/rearm/repair them. I don't think you want to wait a couple hours (at least), before reflying?

If you reread my original post instead of coming to a hasty conclusion. You will see that I have already mentioned that 'time' for realism is excessive IE 2 hours. But having a rearm time if it is short but not too long would be better than an instant 'refly', which would be less realistic. You seem like you strive for some realism, yet you would rather steer from it, than get close to it.

LEXX_Luthor
05-16-2006, 07:46 PM
StackHouse::
But having a rearm time if it is short but not too long would be better than an instant 'refly', which would be less realistic. You ((Hoarmurath)) seem like you strive for some realism, yet you would rather steer from it, than get close to it.
Yes! Instant Refly offers ZERO time for ReArm, ReFuel and Total Repair. It is, after all, called Instant Refly. This is one example of the bizzare contradictions we see in the ubi.com ReArm/ReFuel threads. Good call Stack, and a great catch.

slo_1_2_3
05-16-2006, 07:51 PM
maybe it would make people try harder instead of just flying til they die. they could come back and get ready maybe even if it was just jump in a waiting bird ? O well I'm thinking its probably not gonna happen.

Bearcat99
05-16-2006, 09:42 PM
That would be an excellent feature.... of course not in real time which would be ridiculous..... and of course you couldnt have little guys come running out.... but if you caould actually land... go to a designated area... and depending on the level set in config... or how may times you have already done it... go back up.... It would be good.. but i dont think it will be in this sim... plus.. truth be told.. I really wouldnt want that feature unless some form of fatigue was modelled too.. say after you go up 3 or 4 times.. depending on how may times you blacked out in the previous sorties... they would start to get longer....

Also I think there should be some kind of incentive to NOT just hit refly.. say an extra 200 points for each time you could sucessfully make it back and RRR.... and of course if you get shot down eventually you loose all that except whatever take down points you accumulated.

WTE_Galway
05-16-2006, 11:41 PM
Well ... normal refuel and rearm varied from half an hour to half a day depending on the aircraft and how many ground crew were available, I do not know of any historical scenario where the pilot sat strapped in the cockpit, his sweating brow being mopped by a pretty young WAAF or blonde fraulien if he was german, while groundcrew swarmed all over his machine so he could head off again in a roar of avgas and dust Biggles style.

Its not as if a dozen highly trained technician were sitting waiting for the next dashing young pilot to taxi up for yet another record breaking 60 second pit stop before heading gallantly back into the fray amid massive applause .. there was a war on.



Personally i think a pitstop style refuel would be annoying .. you would have to taxi off the runway to the refuel area .. park for some time (and be vulnerable to vulching) and then taxi back to the runway to takeoff.

Under the current system you hit refly from the spot you land and then taxi out your fresh rearmed and refueled plane.

I also think its a semantic thing .. if Oleg just relabelled the button "refuel and rearm" and made no other changes maybe that would keep everyone happy


BTW ... the poll is a bit misleading .. you have split the opposing vote into two very similiar options

OD_79
05-17-2006, 03:48 AM
It took 8 minutes to fully rearm and refuel a Hurricane during the Battle of Britain. Aircraft were sometimes called upon to be up in the air again 15 minutes after they had landed, it definately does not take hours. Then again I don't fancy just sitting there for 8-15 minutes waiting. I would be happy for it tobe scaled down to 1 - 2 minutes, gives you a chance to take a quick break. But be prepared for far more vulching.
One good point to consider...it would stop people taking off from Taxy ways.

OD.

Capt.LoneRanger
05-17-2006, 04:35 AM
I still find this idea odd. Okay, sometimes, this quick reload was possible, though the 8 minutes stop didn't include refuel and it often meant to fly different planes, so the 8 minutes is basically "refly" in a new plane, while the other plane is rearmed and refueled. Aircrafts were not the UK problem in BoB, the limited number of pilots was. So, you have to take these reports with a bit more critizism.

On the other hand, I'm a bit branded, cause I used to play BF2 a lot and bombers there just fly large circles, repairing and rearming at full speed, if you fly over your airfield. That dangerously damages balancing.

I don't want to see something like that in IL2.

If it is done correctly, though, I got to admit, that it would be fun. That would, e.g. mean, taxi to a special position (not just stand on the runway) and wait there. You should be able to abort rearm and refuel process, but not like "Oh, enemy coming, engine on and go" - it should take a few minutes to ready guns, close hatches, etc.

So, basically, if you even wait down there, maybe 10 minutes, like a sitting duck next to a nice big fueltruck and ammo-transports - yes, that might be an addition to immersion and fun. It would also open up some nice features for campaigns. E.g. destroy the equipment on an airfield and there goes the refueling option. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HotelBushranger
05-17-2006, 05:47 AM
I am still rather skeptical to this whole thing...for me it does feel rather arcadey. I would only like it if it was pulled off perfectly. Apart from just dreaming about it, you have to think about the technical side? Do you have to press a button? Will there be any sort of indicator (flashing light, message) to tell when you can re arm/fuel? What would actually happen? Would you see people swarming over your plane, or would just the gun hatches open mysteriously and rounds begin to pour in.

I am definitely against the repair option, that would just be pushing the simulation/arcade boundary.

Hell, I'm not even sure if such dynamic things like engine wear and pilot fatigue are possible to simulate!

Personally, I voted for the last option.

WWSensei
05-17-2006, 06:06 AM
My puzzlement over the request is that there isn't anything preventing you from simulating such a feature NOW. If you want to go out, fight, land and wait say 5 minutes sweating out whether you will get strafed etc then just land and wait 5 minutes before hitting refly.

Why waste resources implementing a feature you can already do yourself?

slipBall
05-17-2006, 06:10 AM
I think RRR would slow things down too much for most on-line players. Most are so impatient to get back in the air, that they spawn and take off. To impatient to use runway, or proper taxi way, many tring to pass the aircraft ahead of them, usally ending in a fire ball. Now in off-line the ability is there. I'm sure that many have designed mission's where fuel truck, and other vehicles arive to service returning aircraft, you only need to keep a eye on the clock, to make it work for imer level increase. However, little people running around would add greatly to this, I don't think we will see this though

Chivas
05-17-2006, 11:37 AM
You gotta remember guys this is an Option. The on-line guys can turn the [Option] OFF

One of the complaints of the off-line crowd is the sterile emptyness of the airbases. I think taxiing to a designated area of the base where your aircraft is refuelled and rearmed by a couple of ground crew will go along way to rectify this. While your waiting for your aircraft {the time being adjustable to suit your taste} you could walk to the dispersal hut to get details of your next mission. Pilots did multiple daily mission during the Battle of Britain.

Remember this is an OPTION that you can turn OFF if it annoys you so much. Then you can hit your much more realistic "Refly Button" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I can see the ground crew objecting too refuelling and rearming aircraft for the very dangerous cross runway takoff's of the on-line crew. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

HANS-57
05-17-2006, 11:54 AM
It seems to me that this topic has only been viewed from the perspective of online play.

I would also like to have the RRR option not only for myself in missions I build, but for the AI units in my squad. I have always wanted to have a mission where upon returning to base you get scrambled to fight off some incoming retaliatory attack. This is only one of many ways this could be used for those who like to create long robust missions just for themselves, or to share with others.

p1ngu666
05-17-2006, 02:19 PM
maybe get out, and goto another aircraft and fly that.

say bob lands his spit, abit of damage, swaps to a fully healthy hurri.

tom lands his blehiem, jumps out and rushes to the partly refueled spit, but fully armed- and takes off to help bob.

more complex system, but u could have a "pool" of aircraft for each side, useable for the mission/dogfight.

say 20spits,30hurri's, 20 blehiems, 10 misc aircraft

vs
30 109, 20 110, 40 he111, 30 do17, 10 ju88

Stigler_9_JG52
05-17-2006, 02:51 PM
Either get the mission accomplished with your one plane load of ammo, bombs or what have you...

or fly another sortie.

That's added incentive not to mess up your one chance, no?

Why should you get a "5-minute refuel". This isn't NASCAR. There are no "pit crews". Refueling takes at a minimum half an hour. Why should we get to compress it into a few seconds? That's arcade.

Chivas
05-17-2006, 03:26 PM
Its alot less arcade than hitting the refly button and magically appearing at another base.

Stigler_9_JG52
05-17-2006, 05:36 PM
Not really.

You see, the format of this sim is pretty much one sortie = one play. It was never intended for a real time simulation of a battle lasting an entire day at one sitting.

Refly is the catchall for starting another sortie for a variety of reasons: success on the last sortie, death on the last sortie, rtb after last sortie, whatever.

Tactically, there were very VERY few turnaround pit crews that could refuel, rearm and clear to fly (that is, check for damage, do a walkaround, etc.) any plane in less than 45 mins to an hour...and that's with a crack crew, the best conditions, etc.

If you land....hit refly and just be done with it. If you didn't fulfill the mission in the last sortie, tough. Do it (or fail to) in this mission.

Cossack13
05-17-2006, 06:06 PM
You better also campaign for bulletproof hangars to hide in or the ground-attackers will light you up as you sit there refueling! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chivas
05-17-2006, 06:52 PM
Really. I know pilots had to deal with RRR. Arcade pilots have a Refly button.

BOB pilots did multiple missions and the turn around times were much less than 45 min.

In BOB there could be a drop down menu when you come to a stop.

1. Walk to despersal hut /bunker to get next mission or standdown.
a. wait for your own aircraft.
b. take another prepare aircraft if available

2. Run to nearest bunker if base under attack
a. take another aircraft if available

3. In the difficulty settings toggle "No RRR"

WTE_Galway
05-17-2006, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:

say bob lands his spit, abit of damage, swaps to a fully healthy hurri.

tom lands his blehiem, jumps out and rushes to the partly refueled spit, but fully armed- and takes off to help bob.



I suspect a Blenheim pilot who jumped in a random Spitfire .. even if rated for type .. might have found himself grounded for the rest of the war .. that sort of undisciplined behaviour only occurs in movies and computer games.

Stigler_9_JG52
05-17-2006, 08:37 PM
It simply wouldn't happen.

For one thing, the Spits and Blens wouldn't even be based at the same airstrip. Then there's the qualification thing.

Only a fan of Ben Afleck movies would see a need for a "pit stop" command.

Just hit Refly.

LEXX_Luthor
05-17-2006, 09:57 PM
Think Beyond BoB.

Any increase in Online vulching should encourage a better attitude toward airfield defense. Skinners have made those red bottomed wing -109Ks and Doras that protected -262 airfields, this could offer a reason to use them in that role.

What happened to the Japanese pilots trapped on their carriers off Midway make me imagine landing on your carrier and hoping to get into the air again before more dive bombers fall down on your ship between the towering tropical cumulus clouds. Watching dive bombers approach at high altitude -- watch for high altitude flak bursts, if Oleg could get the render distance correct by using simple flak burst grafix at very long distances. Or get caught on the ship and see torpedo planes incoming on the horizon ... if Oleg's BoB+ ships could manuever to evade that would be fascinating.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif towering tropical cumulus clouds -- if only flight sim Devs knew about these, and their dominating role in air warfare.

AKA_TAGERT
05-18-2006, 08:45 AM
What about dukie? One might need a tinkle after a long fight

p1ngu666
05-18-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

say bob lands his spit, abit of damage, swaps to a fully healthy hurri.

tom lands his blehiem, jumps out and rushes to the partly refueled spit, but fully armed- and takes off to help bob.



I suspect a Blenheim pilot who jumped in a random Spitfire .. even if rated for type .. might have found himself grounded for the rest of the war .. that sort of undisciplined behaviour only occurs in movies and computer games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nah, not really. posted to the desert or CBI probably. utterly horrorific causalties in blehiems http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

who said they hadtobe on the same airfild? planes on fields that arent there own all the time.

the locking in of planetype sounds great for the elistest i only fly so and so plane/series. right untill they join warclouds and theres only hurri and 110 left for fighters..

-HH- Beebop
05-19-2006, 07:24 PM
I vote for "RRR". I like the idea of a 5-10 minute turnaround time to re-arm/refuel. It may not be "perfect" (what is in a simulation?) but it would add a sense of immersion.
Repair should only be allowed for small holes/cable damage. Engine damage/large holes, missing control surfaces, damaged landing gear etc. would require a Refly.

But given that will require additional coding that may be cumbersome and have unwanted side effects (like most code changes seem to do), I also like the idea of respawning and having the patience to wait for a few minutes, on the tarmac, to refly. Use the time to vist the WC, get a beverage, stretch your legs etc.

My opinon is that the current 'just hit refly' is more "arcadish" if you will that some form of "RRR".

zaelu
05-20-2006, 02:22 AM
I think this repair, rearm, refuel if is made too long it will be droped in the end.

Oleg said, I think, somethig about simulating a complete engine start sequence that will be fun for 1% and even them would drop it after a little playing with it. So he said is lost resources.

This RRR is going to be like that in the end if is made to be too realistic. We have the "arcadish" way of simulating we are geting a new plane we should have a way of simulating RRR too.
But, we should have a way of wariating the time the reapair, refuel and rearm takes (server based) and it should be ranging from "instant" (Arcade-Rafly style) to "realistic" (nit pickers style http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

I think slowly (or maybe quickly) we will find the balance by simply having the people that joins the servers manifest their preference.

-HH- Beebop
05-20-2006, 03:56 AM
Make "RRR" a difficulty setting, On/Off and edit the values for 'Refuel'/'Rearm'/'Repair' in the conf.ini file.
The default setting could be the current "Refly" mode.

Cossack13
05-20-2006, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by zaelu:
Oleg said, I think, somethig about simulating a complete engine start sequence that will be fun for 1% and even them would drop it after a little playing with it. So he said is lost resources.
It would be a lot of work for the programmers and it would produce something that most players would not want.

stubby
05-20-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Chivas:
You gotta remember guys this is an Option. The on-line guys can turn the [Option] OFF

One of the complaints of the off-line crowd is the sterile emptyness of the airbases.

Exactly. Ship the game with options for the reason you stated. Having ground crews guys buzzing around the field would go a L-O-N-G way into breathing life into the game. I know it's taboo to mention other sims, but the simple method they had in CFS2 for rearm/repair was pretty cool especially the way it was implemented in their online dogfighting. Was it real - no. But it was head and shoulders better than a no-penatly based insta refly.

Stackhouse25th
05-20-2006, 12:23 PM
What would be nice is a fire crew to put out your plane that was on fire, either wing based fire, or one that is brewing in your engine.

Ive landed with engine fires and smoke fires before and the plane was fine, it just needed to be extinguished.

its that battle to hit refly before you explode

heywooood
05-20-2006, 01:08 PM
maybe if RRR was enabled - internet DF arcaders would finally employ AA batteries in correct numbers at their home bases instead of crying about accurate WWII term used here 'vulching' oh yeah...it was called strafing.

p1ngu666
05-20-2006, 04:06 PM
yep there is the vulching problem. if u followed my idea (which no one liked), then ud have aircraft dotted around that can be blown up on ze ground.

suddenly bombers and ground attack aircraft are crucial...

heywooood
05-21-2006, 09:32 AM
for flak suppression??...no!

p1ngu666
05-21-2006, 12:23 PM
no for blowing up the other sides aircraft http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

typical server setup, 2 airfields per side

say for example 100aircraft avalible then map changes.

50 per airfield.

if u came along in your bomber/strike aircraft, and took out about half the avalible aircraft from a airfield, thats a pretty big chunk taken out of the enemy. specialy if u targeted a certain type...

more realisitic aircombat http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

and in BOB era, the fighters where fighters, and the bombers where bombers. fighters could jabo, but they lack the ammo/guns/bombs tobe super effective.

MucusG
05-22-2006, 05:01 AM
Love your idea p1ngu666.

I think any idea that bring more vaired types of aircraft into the online mix is a great thing.

It would be awesome to have to stop a bomber from wiping out much of your resources. How it is now the missions dont seem to be taken seriously on most servers. Would of course give all the mudmovers cause to rejioce as they would be a formidable threat.

I think some form of RRR is an excellet idea (of course can turn it on/off)

PF_Coastie
05-22-2006, 05:17 AM
I think we are getting people here from 2 different camps, dogfight camp and coop camp.

In a coop, this feature would be no good. Coops are designed as one flight for a specific mission. I believe this is where the confusion is coming in. It should NOT be an option for coops.

In Dedicated Dogfight servers(scripted) however, there are many different objectives with new pilots coming and going all the time. This feature would be very instrumental for immersion IMHO. The bomber pilots could catch 2 or 3 planes sitting on tarmacs waiting there few minutes for RRR and get some live kills.

The scripted dogfight server simulates long battles which would usually take days to accomplish IRL, therefore the sped up times for RRR would be exceptable. Heck, perhaps they could even allow the host to set the times for each.

RAF74_Poker
05-22-2006, 12:31 PM
I disagree.
A RRR option would be very welcome in the coop campaign I and my friends fly almost every night .... then again, we have no issues with flying 30 - 60 minutes without action, just because our squadron is tranferring bases. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't necessarily desire a repair , but definitely a refuel/rearm option.
And the chance of being attacked, whether by a mission designer's planning, or on a d/f server might prompt designers to make better airfields.

PF_Coastie
05-22-2006, 01:48 PM
Yeah, you are right. After rethinking the situation, this would be very beneficial to well designed coops. It could be the ultimate Dead is Dead scenario, because in coops you can not refly!

It would be a must for host to enable/disable the option though. Most current online wars are not setup to use the feature, but they could be easily reworked to take advantage of it.

Maj_Solo
05-22-2006, 04:09 PM
I am for 2.5 number of R's. If you take care of your aircraft well and don't get any hits, it is very central to the whole war effort you be able to participate in further actions very sson the same day, sometimes just as soon as the mechanics have rearmed and refueled.

But I want realism, minor damages can be fixed, and it takes time, so you might have to wait to later that day to go up again unless you pick another aircraft. If no other aircraft you might click yes on the option to tke off with a damaged aircraft. So when you are back on the ground you have to inspect the aircraft and check damage and make a decisision together with the mech to fly with it again or not.


What I don't want to see i severe damage fixed in 3 minutes. It could be online but not in any campaign more where we are simulating the war, the sim should instead time-skip to the point where the user is allowed to fly again.

But RRR is super important for the atmosphere in the sim, and it better be realistic, it was so critical in BOB, and a pilot who is not reckless should be rewarded by being able to conduct more sorties and therefore in a certain time period be able to rack up more kills than a reckless pilot.

-HH- Beebop
05-22-2006, 05:58 PM
I vote for at least a Refuel/Rearm toggle. Repair might be a bit harder to do as how would you decide how long it would take? Number of hits the plane took? Historically one thing that determined repair time was parts availability or having a spare plane to use as a "parts plane".
Co-Op combat could certainly make use of this feature, especially on a map where the airfield was close to the front.

Maj_Solo
05-23-2006, 06:36 AM
The mech could tell you how long he think it will take = what the sim has decided it will take. You then think about how it felt taking the aircraft down and if you can work with that aircraft in that shape on the next stint. It could be some very minor damage, the aircraft just being a wee bit unbalanced.

Blottogg
05-23-2006, 03:05 PM
I don't fly on-line, but I like the idea for off-line campaigns. Given the nature of the Battle of Britain, squadrons typically flew multiple sorties per day, and their status (on alert, airborne, engaged, recovering, refueling) was tracked by fighter command, presumably for a reason. It would also work well with the feature of aicraft wear and tear Oleg has mentioned in the past.

I've still got to read "The Fighter Boys" to get a feel for the actual day-to-day operations, but from what little I know so far, turn times for the Spits and Hurris should be fairly short, especially later in the battle when the heat was off the fighter airfields and the ground crews had become more experienced. I'm not sure the feature would be as applicable to the Luftwaffe for this battle, but for later expansions, refueling and rearming in order to catch the bomber stream again on its outbound leg would definitely be a player, just as it would for the RAF in the Battle of Britain.

And like others have posted, I don't need to see guys crawling on my wing with ammo belts. A timer or splash screen would be fine, and allow a trip to the head (who said 'head'???) and a sandwich. Or a 'cuppa' if you want more immersion.

LEXX_Luthor
05-23-2006, 06:25 PM
Thank You fellas/fellattes.

The contributions on this page (page 3), so far are the most intelligent and in-depth I've ever seen on this RR topic, from both Online and Offline players. The creative (and intelligently presented!!) RR ideas offered in this page 3 is one (1) thing that combat flight sim Devs everywhere can study to help their future business success. Thanks again.

p1ngu666
05-23-2006, 06:51 PM
the big difference between my idea, and what we have now on scripted df servers, is that your allaction of planes are somewhere on the map from the start...

hitting that depo would be really painful for the opposition.

plus planes in servicing will be vunrable to attack, much more than currently, where a bombers attack window is 20-30seconds. while a level bomb run is pretty much pot luck.

include recon planes and information sharing of targets, then fighters start to look really secondary...

plus the lw guys will be really happy when oleg says they will get blue spitfires.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-24-2006, 04:40 PM
Good ideas too pingu. Players refitting make for good bomber attacks, and require some players to fly skins with red underwings to protect the other players. Unless they can carry the offensive successfully to the other base. The trick is to tip the balance and have your sides' planes closer to their base than the opposite, forcing them to fly more defense than offense.

p1ngu666
05-24-2006, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Good ideas too pingu. Players refitting make for good bomber attacks, and require some players to fly skins with red underwings to protect the other players. Unless they can carry the offensive successfully to the other base. The trick is to tip the balance and have your sides' planes closer to their base than the opposite, forcing them to fly more defense than offense.

a well sorted team could use a on the fly "cab rank" system aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

i do wonder if a high flying mossie, at very high speed might be able todo a bomb run, and do a tight turn right away, so as not to get into air raid siren range...

WTE_Galway
05-24-2006, 09:44 PM
so long as we don't get a flurry of "country X ground crew are over/undermodelled" whiners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
05-24-2006, 09:53 PM
ground crew should be equal imo, like pilots pysical abilities http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

whiteladder
05-25-2006, 08:59 AM
One of the states aim of SoW is greater "man management" of a Squadron. I think RRR would fit this excellently (offline), the effects of one sortie should effect the next and if you decide to scramble a whole Squadron for one sortie that should have a knock on effect for the next. The whole thing could be abstracted to simply defining how many aircraft are available for the next mission. It would also be nice to work the amount of damage a airfield recieves from an attack in to this, the more damage to longer turn around time.

Cossack13
05-26-2006, 07:33 AM
I'm ok with it just so long as the time it takes is realistic so the mud-movers can find the guys sitting on the ground waiting and blast them to hell and back.

grifter2u
06-24-2006, 01:59 AM
rearm/refuel/repair did happen during WW2 , and it still does currently with aircraft in war. whiners that complain about implementing this in il2 simply dont know their facts.

during the real battle of brittain period, allied aircraft often landed and got quickly refueld and rearmed when they were close to the action on busy days. they had a few minor repairs done on the spot, and the aircraft was sent back up again. there is some old video of this being done to, and you see the mechanics trying to fix various things while the aircraft is being refueled/rearmed, and then it is sent straight back out again.

obviously if the damage to the aircraft was to excessive, the same aircraft wouldnt be sent out. a pilot might then jump into a different aircraft if that was available at that airfield (the equivalent of hitting refly in il2)

if you looked at close ups of fighter aircraft taken during recent gulf wars, the video film taken on airfields and aircraft carriers clearly shows " quick fix patches" places over damaged fuselage/wing area's of the aircrafts, and aircraft would be "hot pitted" (meaning the pilot stays in the aircraft while it is being refueled and rearmed, he cant even step out to take a leak) and then the aircraft with the same pilot is being sent out again.

using this in il2 would significantly increase realism. it is also a nice feature when you return from a long range flight with a damaged/low-fuel aircraft and can only just make it back over the border to friendly territory. you could then briefly land for a splash 'n dash so you can make it back to your original airfield (as real pilots would have done)

the hard part for oleg will be to find the right ballence, ie badly damaged aircraft should be impossible to repair completely. he could also implement some similar system to that used in some current racing sims, where you get a visual diagram representation of your car/aircraft and red/green light for damage to an area. this would give you the same information as your crew chief would give you on the ground verbally ... " captain, we fixed the fuel leak but your right elevator is still a bit dodgy. good luck". that type of method to obtain an accurate damage report might seem artificial, but it would correctly convey the type of information a pilot would have recived in ww2, so it simulates real events. (or oleg could do it with a voice file for ex). a similar type of info could be given by the AI wingman who visually inspects your damaged aircraft in flight for ex, like would have been done in real life just before landing a damaged aircraft)

rearm/refuel/repair is historically correct and should be present as an option we can turn on/off, we just need to add it in a way that doesn tmake it arcade, yet still gives us the same feature/function/information as it would have in real life, fake-real whiners can always switch it of if they dont like it.

the main reason historically rearm/refuel/repair was being used is because sometimes the action was very close to friendly airfileds, and getting every possible support aircraft into the air to help was important. there was also no endless supply of new aircraft available and every aircraft counted. so using this feature in BoB will be double important, because the allies have to constantly respond to short notice warning of incoming raids ! online quakers could also be penalised by not having a unlimited number of fresh aircraft available each time they waste one, it might even force them to fly a bit more "real".


,

Fillmore
06-24-2006, 11:37 AM
For online play this is little different than giving "respawn timer" a new name. I think it is generally accepted that this is a good thing to have available (not mandatory of course, like death kick from a DF server as a configurable option), not sure why so many people are against it - probably just the use of words.

For offline play it is something that should be available to be configured by mission builders, so that multiple sorties could be conducted within a single scenario, rather than having to break the atmosphere by having a new scenario for each sortie, so that those situations where such was done irl can be represented more realistically ingame. Note that I am talking about the scenario, beign able to keep the same scenario is the only mechanism that is needed, with single player you can just fast forward anyway.

Another way to get the same effect would be if one could set a mission that will take as input the results of a previous mission and generate from that a new mission - this would preserve the illusion of still being in the same scenario (you would have to be able to carry over aircraft damage and such, and may have a provision for additional units to arrive).

Don't get caught up in those words (mainly because RRR brings up images of NASCAR - thus detracting from what you are trying to get across), think of the real effects you are looking for. A respawn timer as a host option for multiplay, and the ability to build single player scenarios that represent multiple sorties.

Bandit.426Cdn
06-24-2006, 01:11 PM
I really don't get this realism contradiction ****..

IMHO.. instant refly is about as unrealistic as it gets - You are in a recently spawned fighter, revving up to taxi out at 30% throttle.. still controllable to stop inside of 50 yards on brakes. When suddenly PiLOT-JoE spawns in to 'instant refly', right in your travel path. *blammo*

Logic says for the feeling of realism, following as close to continuity as is possible, is preferrable. No need for suspension of disbelief, as with 'instant refly'.

This is the way i see it being ideal:

You land, you assess the continued air-worthyness of your aircraft based on hits etc. - if hit badly, you hit 'instant refly' for a new machine, a 'clean start' if you will, with no bonus points, but full points based on kills for a successful landing. If your aircraft is in good shape (aka you are Uber-pilot), you queue up at the rearm hut, then go on your way to the fuel bowser, and taxi over the departure tarmac for reflight to complete the mission. This cuts down on airfield refly-spawn collisions - this would increase the need for airfield traffic discipline however - no more taking off across three runways, on the perpendicular, only to fireball against the backside of a hanger. Seems a little more realistic to me. However many times you land, rearmour, refuel, and take-off again without 'instant refly' (which in this scenario would act like a bonus points reset), the more bonus points you rack up.

Seems this sort of scoring plan, coupled with a more realistic sortie turn-around option to 'instant refly', would be much more realistic, and would encourage proper use of classic WW2 tactics of proper airbase cover, encouraging people to work as a team, rather than individual lone-wolves.



Originally posted by Stackhouse25th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
If you want realism, these feature are definitely to be avoided.

But they would be perfect for an arcade game.

You know, these planes aren't modern days formula ones, it take some time to refuel/rearm/repair them. I don't think you want to wait a couple hours (at least), before reflying?

If you reread my original post instead of coming to a hasty conclusion. You will see that I have already mentioned that 'time' for realism is excessive IE 2 hours. But having a rearm time if it is short but not too long would be better than an instant 'refly', which would be less realistic. You seem like you strive for some realism, yet you would rather steer from it, than get close to it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stackhouse25th
06-24-2006, 03:47 PM
Bandit brings up a number of good points.

HellToupee
06-24-2006, 05:34 PM
if u want it to fix collisions then just make it so a plane after spawning for about 20seconds or something will just have planes pass through it without colliding.

The vast majority of people reflying are not landed people but shotdowns so it is not a fix, also if landing becomes such a long process why would people even bother in a df server.

The thing is what is the point of such a feature, how realistic is landing and magically all of a sudden ur plane is refueled and rearmed by magic it has no difference to refly and no point for a df environment and im sure its not a feature wanted in coop or single player missions.

Chivas
06-24-2006, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
if u want it to fix collisions then just make it so a plane after spawning for about 20seconds or something will just have planes pass through it without colliding.

The vast majority of people reflying are not landed people but shotdowns so it is not a fix, also if landing becomes such a long process why would people even bother in a df server.

The thing is what is the point of such a feature, how realistic is landing and magically all of a sudden ur plane is refueled and rearmed by magic it has no difference to refly and no point for a df environment and im sure its not a feature wanted in coop or single player missions.

The point is....immersion...and definitely a feature needed in coop and single player missions by most people. Probably not wanted by quick shoot and die dogfight crowd, but the other point is it will be an option. Options are good.

Bandit.426Cdn
06-24-2006, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
if u want it to fix collisions then just make it so a plane after spawning for about 20seconds or something will just have planes pass through it without colliding.

The vast majority of people reflying are not landed people but shotdowns so it is not a fix, also if landing becomes such a long process why would people even bother in a df server.

The thing is what is the point of such a feature, how realistic is landing and magically all of a sudden ur plane is refueled and rearmed by magic it has no difference to refly and no point for a df environment and im sure its not a feature wanted in coop or single player missions.

Generalising statement. There are a number of different scenario's where having this sort of option is desireable. The 'instant action', furball type server that people use for a quick bit of 'less than realistic' enjoyment, yes 'instant refly' as the exclusive mode of restart is probably best. However, for the objective based, competitive servers where teamwork, and pilot conservation is paramount, getting pilots to fly, engage, and RTB smartly with both aircraft and pilot survival in mind would be desireable also. I know when i fly, part of the challenge IS RTB for me - I like to fly bombers pretty well exclusively. Mine is not a fighter pilot viewpoint.

It's an viable method of scoring/approxamitisation of realism for the combat flight sim pilot to improve immersion, and with the option to enable or disable it on the server side, to reflect user preference, no one should really be objecting to this sort of idea.

HellToupee
06-24-2006, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
if u want it to fix collisions then just make it so a plane after spawning for about 20seconds or something will just have planes pass through it without colliding.

The vast majority of people reflying are not landed people but shotdowns so it is not a fix, also if landing becomes such a long process why would people even bother in a df server.

The thing is what is the point of such a feature, how realistic is landing and magically all of a sudden ur plane is refueled and rearmed by magic it has no difference to refly and no point for a df environment and im sure its not a feature wanted in coop or single player missions.

The point is....immersion...and definitely a feature needed in coop and single player missions by most people. Probably not wanted by quick shoot and die dogfight crowd, but the other point is it will be an option. Options are good. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

coop and single player missions are about one sortie one mission, anything with respawn/rearm can be done in df.

Bandit rearm is pointless ither have respawn/refly on a timer. The rearm sort of option is gimmiky complicated and no of any great use.

Chivas
06-25-2006, 01:20 AM
coop and single player missions are about one sortie one mission, anything with respawn/rearm can be done in df.

Thats one of the problems with this sim. If there were Rearming, Refuelling, and Repair, Coops, Single player, and on-line wars would be far more interesting. The refly button is totally unrealistic when your trying to simulate the reality of WW2 aircombat. If your just into quick dogfights the refly button does a great job. I just don't understand why people want to cut short any idea for others to enjoy the OPTION of having a more realistic experience.

HellToupee
06-25-2006, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Chivas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">coop and single player missions are about one sortie one mission, anything with respawn/rearm can be done in df.

Thats one of the problems with this sim. If there were Rearming, Refuelling, and Repair, Coops, Single player, and on-line wars would be far more interesting. The refly button is totally unrealistic when your trying to simulate the reality of WW2 aircombat. If your just into quick dogfights the refly button does a great job. I just don't understand why people want to cut short any idea for others to enjoy the OPTION of having a more realistic experience. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Online wars are designed for single missions not for long drawn out senarios what happens when all the ai planes fly home? They will not rearm and refly online wars ive played mostly about fighting ai opponents, since well other than moving ground targets ai opponents is the differnce between df and coop.

Also this post was made not for coop single player games but DF server games for something other than refly.

KG26_Alpha
06-25-2006, 07:13 AM
Hmmm

I think this should be exclusively for coop not df.

As already mentioned

1. Rename the Refly button > Refuel Rearm Repair.
2. Wait 20 mins on at the hangars then hit refly.
3. Immersion ?? You cant model pilot fatigue, someone mention Henschels doing over a dozen missions a day, that was all ground attack.

So a thumbs up for COOP but not needed for DF as its already there.

LEXX_Luthor
06-25-2006, 05:52 PM
26::
1. Rename the Refly button > Refuel Rearm Repair.
2. Wait 20 mins on at the hangars then hit refly.
Me-262 historical vulnerability was during takeoff and landing. We need the dogfight server option to land before we hit the Refuel/Rearm/Refly button.


26::
3. Immersion ?? You cant model pilot fatigue, someone mention Henschels doing over a dozen missions a day, that was all ground attack.
Yes, World War 2 Army close support ground attack was very physically exhausting for pilots.

Server option for ReFuel and ReArm (- along with limiting plane type numbers -) is the best way to improve Oleg's dogfight shooter servers -- finally Me-262 will see its historical vulnerabilities to balance its superjet-ness and this means Vulching enemy airfields are permitted, which requires some players to fly airfield defense, protecting Refitting players along with some AI AA guns on the airfield.

LEXX_Luthor
06-25-2006, 06:16 PM
Granted ... 20 minutes may be too much for a dogfight shooter server. Maybe 10 minutes. No matter, the timing should be a server option, and best, the timing should scale with a set of base timings that Oleg gives...ie...

Hurricane refits in 1.0 unit of time.
P-51Dora refits in 1.8 units of time.
Me-262 refits in 4.26 units of time.

Now, the server (or Offline single player at home), just uses a selected and thereafter constant multiple of "oleg" units across all aircraft...say the server or offline selected multiple is "10 minutes per unit"

Hurricane refits in 1.0 x 10 minutes/unit = 10.0 minutes.
P-51Dora refits in 1.8 x 10 minutes/unit = 18 minutes.
Me-262 refits in 4.26 x 10 minutes/unit = 42.6 minutes.

Now, the base or "oleg" timings should be very roughly historical, although perhaps not so extreme, and this method should help take care of any issue of "too many players" wanting to fly teh Super Jets Fighters. Yes? No?

Even with a selected Zero time for ReFuel and ReArm, the important thing is <span class="ev_code_yellow">landing</span>, low and slow and vulnerable, at a friendly base is required before continuing play. Zero refit time can be chosen simply by choosing Zero for the "oleg" multiple ...

Hurricane refits in 1.00 x 0.0 minutes/unit = 0.0 minutes.
P-51Dora refits in 1.80 x 0.0 minutes/unit = 0.0 minutes.
Me-262 refits in 4.26 x 0.0 minutes/unit = 0.0 minutes.



:thumps: do'h http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

HellToupee
06-25-2006, 11:46 PM
What happens to killed shotdown or bailed out players? they also wait 20mins? 20mins is longer than most sorties, what about people who get rammed on the ground any time over 2-3minutes would cause excessive frustration for players.

It is not immersion, it is fake forced limits that do more to destroy any sense of simulation. Want immersion, then set the bases more than an hours flying apart thats immersion for you.

Such a system would reduce people actually flying, great frustration for squads flying together having to wait forever for a teammate to be ready. If such a system has only effect on landers then what happens to the side that gets slaughted and then the other rtbs :P vulching paradise. Not to mention disconnecting and reconnecting takes just a minute.

Chivas
06-26-2006, 12:44 AM
You definitely wont get anyone in a dogfight server or off-line player to wait 20 minutes, unless he wants lunch or cup of coffee before the next mission. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It would have to be a variable time set by the player off-line and the server on-line. Its really quite easy...turn off the option completely if your not interested....turn the option on and set the turn around time if you are.

The option can be quite immersive and alot of fun. I remember flying CFS1 or 2 that had an instant repair and rearm after the aircraft stopped. It was great fun being chased back to base with your aircraft shot up, making a dificult landing, then taking off and shooting down the Bastich that chased you back to base. As it stands now the aircraft disappears and can respawn at a totally different base.

It would not like to see an instant refuel and rearm but a system where the player would have to taxi to a designated hard stand where his aircraft would be refueled, rearmed, and repaired if it had minor damage. Again the suitable turn around time (Realistic or arcade or anything inbetween) set by the player off-line and the server on-line. The player could have a multitude of options once the aircraft has stopped depending on the conditions at the base.

AAA option could make for far more interesting campaigns, coops, on-line wars, etc.

KG26_Alpha
06-26-2006, 02:42 AM
Thats exactly the point of my post, its already there no need to program anything else into it for DF servers, just sit there for as long as you like then hit refly. You probally never take more than 25% fuel so wait 10 mins 50% 15 mins etc etc....

COOPS though would benefit from RRR.

IMHO of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chivas........ I seem to remember that name from the "ZONE" lol. and Coolbreeze of course.

Yes CFS1 had some long flights we used to do Bigin Hill to Berlin with the benefit of "cfoing" across the map to rejoin your team mates if shot down, so the flights for our group of pilots were long. IL2 series with the smaller maps has condensed the fight area to a hot spot type of game play with particular areas of the war undertaken by the map areas covered. Thus no huge single map like CFS1.

Also it shows up the coop v df pilots as a coop'er I often stay in the mission watching for 20 mins whilst it plays out and all rtb, df pilots are easy to spot pushing the host to launch and hassling the other pilots trying to read the briefing, df pilots are the ones typing in the chat box telling everyone to "hit fly" then 3 mins later theyre dead or typing to the host "what am I supposed to do" ?? coz they didnt take time to read the briefing.

Ah I feel better now thxz.......

grifter2u
06-26-2006, 03:03 AM
HellToupee,

you've already said you dont like it , but you keep adding negative stuff as if you think this whole idea needs your aproval, it doesnt.

it would be implemented as an OPTION, so people like you can switch it off. if you cant understand that part, just tell me your favoured plane and i'll start a petition to remove it from il2 because i dont like it, get it ? if i dont like your favoured plane, i simply dont need to fly it eh, it doesnt mean it has to be completely removed from the game.

HellToupee
06-26-2006, 03:19 AM
so its a crime to poke holes in an idea? if no one looked at things in such away uld get games full of crappy pointless ideas.

grifter2u
06-26-2006, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by Chivas:
Really. I know pilots had to deal with RRR. Arcade pilots have a Refly button.

BOB pilots did multiple missions and the turn around times were much less than 45 min.

In BOB there could be a drop down menu when you come to a stop.

1. Walk to despersal hut /bunker to get next mission or standdown.
a. wait for your own aircraft.
b. take another prepare aircraft if available

2. Run to nearest bunker if base under attack
a. take another aircraft if available

3. In the difficulty settings toggle "No RRR"
excelent idea. the "take another prepare aircraft if available" can then be linked to having a limited number of specific aircrafts set for each airfield (set by the server owner, or mission designer), and a limited/variable rate at which new aircraft get added/replaced at each airfield. the result would be that an enemy could effectively shut down an airfield by destroying most of its aircraft on the ground (as happened in real life). If the infrastructure of that airfield is also destroyed (hangers, fuel tanks, crew pits, etc), it could then affect the speed/degree to which repairs are made at that airfield (as it was in real life). lastly, if an airfield is more than 75% destroyed, this could then slowdown/stop the arrival of new fresh aircraft, untill the airfield is significantly repaired after a period of time. you could even add a variable for the speed/rate that an airfield is repaired and resupplied with fresh new aircraft from the production factories (as it was in real life).

a recent documentary about the effectiveness of bomber raids in ww2 illustrated this issue very well. it stated that on average a mass bomber raid on industrial targets (like aircraft factories etc) only very briefly shut down production. usually within a week hey were back at 25% production, and after a couple of weeks 50% production. with all those greatly publicised bomber raids by "bomber harris", the allies had to keep going back to the same targets over and over, because production was being restarted very quickly in real life, and it did NOT significantly affect the german war effort. the ONLY target that was ever bombed that did affect the german war effort directly, was its fuel supplies. when those were briefly targeted near the end of the war, the germans had to strictly ration fuel for aircraft, tanks and troops, and it did affect their fighting effort (in the air and on the ground). we can implement a "light" version of this in il2, for ex like i described above.

you could even add a variable for reducing the air quake attitude found in online servers (emm hitting refly each time you get killed, how real is that eh ?), where pilots that keep getting killed or losing their aircrafts without making enemy kills, go to the "back of the line" when choosing an aircraft at an airfield. pilots that do return with their aircraft, or get a decent amount of kills, get preferential treatment at airfields (bit harder to implement this, but it would be nice to add to RRR). so if you keep loosing aircraft and making no kills, maybe the airfield commander will only give you the old clunker aircrafts that are only partially repaired.

Historically during BoB, allied fighter aircraft usually had their own mechanics and crew chief (like they still do in the RAF), and each aircraft had its own "berth' at home base. these usually were in the form of open bunkers with blast walls in a U shape (to protect the aircraft in case of a raid). so in il2 we could simply taxi to our "spawn point" for RRR, and select what of the 3 R's we want done to our aircraft (or select respawn to a fresh one , if new aircraft are still available at that base).

to me all this would add to the immersion, and realism. people that dont like it can simply turn it off in the options.

grifter2u
06-26-2006, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
COOPS though would benefit from RRR.
IMHO of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

coops would benefit from one more thing, a "respawn to pilot of friendly AI aircraft" and "respawn to friendly multi crew aircraft piloted by human". some other sims (like panzer elite) had this function already years ago. it means that in long coop missions with mutiple players, the people that get killed early dont get bored and leave, or waste their precious few weekly flying hours waiting for a 90 min mission to restart. the can spawn as a gunner/bombadier/navigator in a friends aircraft, or take over the controls of a friendly AI plane and continue the mission.

this would also be as an option, so the server owner can switch it on/off as desired.

and why can we still not fly multi crewed aircraft with several humans online in normal online servers ? like we already can in coops ! i know most of us want to pilot the aircraft, but it is great fun to do with a buddy while on voice comms. also a human gunner is usually more effective than an AI gunner.

these are all realism and immersion issues, and much easier to program in right from the start. some basic game play issues have been overlooked in il2 for a long time, lets make an effort to get them included in BoB from the start !

Xiolablu3
06-26-2006, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
maybe it would make people try harder instead of just flying til they die. they could come back and get ready maybe even if it was just jump in a waiting bird ? O well I'm thinking its probably not gonna happen.

Mate, you are flying on the wrong servers if people just 'fly until they die'.


RRR is agreat idea, maybe you cuold see the screen fade out, time pass, and then you come back to the action, with the ground targets you destroyed still taken out. It would be great for dynamic campaigns.

TWC_DARKANGEL
06-26-2006, 10:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gifI must agree with Stackhouse25th on this topic. I use to play Fighter Ace. In that game when you landed, you can rearm,refuel & repair all at once. This will take about a minute. While this is taking place a pilot could go to the bathroom, smoke a cig, or do anything he/she wanted to do. The only thing is you might be hit while you are being repaired. But such is a thing in war. lol. I hope they do this soon. And one more thing. I hope they would let us start from parking place of the planes instead of the runway. Just a thought. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

greypeace
06-26-2006, 11:37 AM
I have suggested it a long time ago.
Thanks for taking it to task.

CRO_Adriatic
06-26-2006, 05:30 PM
My suggestion is that for this arcade option should exist object which can be placed on ground, (runaway for example), Like Race pylons for example. Passing through them on desired speed (under 100 Km/H for example) will RRR you. After which message "Pilot XXX successfully RRR his aircraft" can be displayed...

grifter2u
06-26-2006, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by CRO_Adriatic:
My suggestion is that for this arcade option should exist object which can be placed on ground, (runaway for example), Like Race pylons for example. Passing through them on desired speed (under 100 Km/H for example) will RRR you. After which message "Pilot XXX successfully RRR his aircraft" can be displayed...

thats a completely silly statement. we are trying to figure a way to add realism and options, and you make a cartoon book sugestion. setting the options in il2 to easy is intended to allow people to get used to a flightsim without needing experience on how to control an aircraft in flight, it doesnt mean we have to make it an low quality arcade plane game.

Bearcat99
06-27-2006, 11:10 AM
I still say real time RRR is a ridiculous notion that will not last at all online... now a shortened RRR.. but onewhee you actaully had to land sucessfully... taxi to a designated area... then hit the RRR key otr whatever it was.... that could work... in DFs as well as coops.. depending on the map and how far from the action a pilot is.... but a realtime RRR? Nonsense.... you have some guys now in DFservers that cant even take the time to taxi to the end of the runway before they go skittering across the field.... or guys that will leave a coop as soon as they go down.... no waiting around to see how the mission turns out for these guys.... the bottom line is, even though you wouldnt know it by the amount of time many of us spend throughout the day here.... we DO have lives... and jobs... and stuff... and many of us have a limited amopunt of time to fly as it is .. I for one wouldnt have much time to sit and wait 20 minutes while I RR..... But I guess as an option it wouldnt be bad to have.... but I bet it wouldnnt get a lot of use after the first few uses.. You have guys now complaining about big maps.. LOL..

Cossack13
06-27-2006, 11:33 AM
Having an unrealistic RRR button for Coops would only drag Coops down to the level of the worst of Airquake DF servers.

grifter2u
06-29-2006, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
.. taxi to a designated area... then hit the RRR key otr whatever it was.... that could work..... but a realtime RRR? Nonsense.... .. I for one wouldnt have much time to sit and wait 20 minutes while I RR..... But I guess as an option it wouldnt be bad to have....

if it is implemented with a bit of thought and flexebility it could work well and add realism. for ex...
- on the way home from a long flight you can briefly land at a friendly airfield for some fuel, so you can make it back to home base.
- if you are CAP over your own airbase you could land for more ammo, and you have to be more carefull with your ride because if you keep getting shot down or crash on land/takeoff, your airfield will run out of aircraft sooner.
- if your home base has been severly attacked, there should be no more "fresh" new aircraft available for a period of time, but landing your intact aircraft at that base should allow you to get some fuel or ammo if the fueldumps and hangers have not been destroyed...etc.

if oleg correctly implements a dynamic campaign engine (no telling he will from posts so far), then the enemy could even target supply colums that are on the roads en route to that damaged airfield, to help in repairs and bring fresh supplies of fuel, parts, etc... destroying those supply collums would delay/block repairs at that airfield for an aditional period, like it did in real life. some 6 year old sims (like mig alley) already had that fully implemented in their dynamic campaign engine, and you could effectively shut down forward airfield by significantly damaging them, and them blocking re-supply (by targeting truck collums, bridges on roads, trains etc). implementing a version of this on air quake servers would add realism.

Bearcat99
07-03-2006, 05:33 PM
Like I said.... im my opinion real time RRR is a waste of effort.... the feature in and of itself is good... and can enhance realism... it can extend coops greatly if you have the ability to land, RR and go back to the fray.... but in real time... it isnt going to work.

Stackhouse25th
07-03-2006, 08:56 PM
i think RRR is most important since BOB is one large map.

grifter2u
07-03-2006, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Like I said.... im my opinion real time RRR is a waste of effort.... the feature in and of itself is good... and can enhance realism... it can extend coops greatly if you have the ability to land, RR and go back to the fray.... but in real time... it isnt going to work.

many things in il2 are not real time already anyway, why do people believe the only way to implement RRR is by doing fully in real time ? (not you bearcat, but other posters here).

when you land your plane now, and select refly, that is not real time. you'd have to taxi to the correct area, exit the aircraft, be debriefed, wait to be tasked to another mission, have a new plane prepared and loaded for your mission etc. none of that is real time at all

when you takeoff and normally need takeoff clearance first, then head over to a nearby enemy airfield or front line, most of those are not real time at all. fighters would not always be located so close to the front line (some are, but not the bulk of them) and it might take you 1 hr or more in flying to get to the contact area, and bombers would often fly 6 hrs on their way to target, and be escorted all the way by various friendly fighters. none of that is real time in il2 currently.

when you select a plane in il2, you choose armaments, plane type, skins, camouflage, nationality, none of that is real time.

when you get shot down over friendly teritory and float down in your parachute, then hit refly. none of that is real time. it would take you hrs or even days to return to base in real life.

if you are wounded in one mission, you land and hit refly and get a health recharge and a free new plane. in real life you might be in hospital for weeks. even when killed you get an instant new life, you dont even have to recreate a new character in il2. worse, you can fly for weeks on some servers and be killed 10's of times yet still acumulate points, not very real life, dead should be dead, start from zero again you fake real fanatics !

oks, you get my drift. MANY things in il2 are not real time and are not realistic at all. they are compromises made to keep game play fluid, and make it enjoyable for people that buy the game, yet still try and keep the ww2 atmosphere alive.

so we can compromise a little for RRR to, refuel , rearm, and repair could all be done in a relative time period. it would not be instant, so you get a time penalty and would be vulnarable to enemy attack while being RRR'd (and maybe can go grab a coffee or sandwich). but after a few min your plane is partially repaired, but at least refueled and rearmed. with a little bit of thought puit into its implementation, it can significantly increase realism and immersion imo. and it being a feature, those that are traumatised by the thought of using this, can simply switch it of.

LEXX_Luthor
07-04-2006, 01:28 AM
grifter2u::
many things in il2 are not real time already anyway, why do people believe the only way to implement RRR is by doing fully in real time ? (not you bearcat, but other posters here).
Not just people "here" but the MAN himself, Oleg Maddox, says that nobody will want to wait "real" historic Refuel/ReArm times...so for that (claimed) reason alone, there is no RR in the sim.

But then, Oleg is the Online flight sim developer who told this webboard that Offline Dynamic Campaigns, such as Lowengrin's 3rd Party work for example, are "arcade."

Ya, I'm a little bummed out.

Oleg, pay attention please. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maraz_5SA
07-19-2006, 09:08 AM
I am completely against this RRR thing, either with realistic or with shortened time.

A coop would last forever with this option on. Instead, now you know you have only an aircraft, only an ammo and fuel load, so you must act in order to save them and accomplish your mission with them.

A coop is a single sortie, it finishes when you land. Stop.

I can see some misuses of this option in coops, e.g. players taking off with only 25% or 50% fuel, to be lighter in dogfight, players not saving ammo, because they know they can rearm and refuel...

In dogfight maps you can simply refly.

IMHO this would be a waste of resources that could better be used to enhance gameplay in other ways (e.g. give us realistic comms, realistic RADAR, etc...)


Maraz

grifter2u
07-24-2006, 09:42 AM
there is absolutely no valid excuse not to include a method to rearm/refuel in il2, and the wanabe fake real kids who object to it should just have a look at some real ww2 footage, or read a few historical books on what really happened during those years. it was a VERY common occurance in real life (i have seen other footage like this that confirms it, for ex during the BoB aircraft with minor damage were also given a few quick field repairs during the rearm/refuel.)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8899961403050041098&q=ww2

for the ones that have a poor attention span, note the commentator says IT WAS THE SAME FROM EVERY AIRFIELD IN NORMANDY, get it now ?

not including these important OPTIONS in il2 really reduces the immersion and realism, and it does not SIMULATE what happened in real life during ww2.

SharkzZ1
09-25-2006, 01:28 PM
Man I have always argued for refuel and rearm boxes{areas on ones homw airfield where you can shut down and be resupplied, they did it in CFS
but it seems our designers in this game dony have the experience or the desire to make a simple addon patch which most of us have asked for / shame really.

Chuck_Older
09-25-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by SharkzZ1:
Man I have always argued for refuel and rearm boxes{areas on ones homw airfield where you can shut down and be resupplied, they did it in CFS
but it seems our designers in this game dony have the experience or the desire to make a simple addon patch which most of us have asked for / shame really.

Do you know how long it took a real Spitfire MkI to re-arm, re-fuel, re-plenish oxygen, and get back into the air? I don't think even half of the players understand how much times this takes. It's very nearly twenty minutes. A Hurri could do it in about 11 in the summer of 1940- that's why the Hurri was more important, if the Brits had nothing but Spits, they'd have been sunk in the Battle of Britian- caught on the ground refuelling, rearming, and getting more oxygen (nobody seems to think about O2 reserves much, eh?). By the way, that sentiment comes direct from a BoB pilot, not my backside http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I thought this thread was curious when it was new, and now it's been resurrected...the OP's statement of "it doesn't really take THAT long" to rearm, refuel, and replenish oxygen (they wouldn't be repairing much) struck me as absurd then, and it does now. It's a longer time than most folks realise

A better solution is to have the player use another aircraft that's all set to go

El Turo
09-25-2006, 03:53 PM
RRR would be monumentally good for the feel of immersion and gameplay. Yeah, it'd have to be shortened somewhat from "real life", but give me a break.. as many have pointed out in this thread.. like the "insta-refly" button is MORE realistic?

I think having to wait 2-5 minutes (depending on your fuel level, ammo and repair needs) would be a fantastic addition to a flight sim environment. It would seriously induce some nail biting moments for guys waiting on that precious few last seconds of fuel and ammo as a bomber comes lumbering over the airfield. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I think the Janes' series also had this feature, and it was an absolute blast. Inbetween sorties, you had a certain amount of repair "mechanic" time you could use to repair your bird.. so sometimes you'd have to fly a bird that wasn't 100% straight. In IL2, it would surely work differently (a point reward for consecutive missions flown with the same bird, for example.. so if you took some minor damage, you could keep going if you thought you could be mission-effective with the minor issue(s)..) That would seem to be a simple arrangement for BoB or IL2.. you can keep your current bird but get a few minor dings hammered out (a few bullet holes, maybe patch a radiator or something fairly minor like that).. is it complete realistic? No, of course not. But then, we're not forced to go without sleep for days on end, repair our own kites or hold our piss for the better part of a full day, either.

The bottom line is that RRR adds a considerable amount of immersion, and THAT, in my opinion, is what simming is all about.. feeling like you're part of the environment and experience.

THREE thumbs up for this wonderful addition. I've missed this since my days with the Janes' products.

Wrong thread for this, but I've also missed a more strategic-tactical layer to simming such as Mig Alley, SWOTL and even Battle of Britain provided. That, along with RRR, would make for a nearly perfect sim, IMO.

Chivas
09-25-2006, 04:43 PM
The optional time variable RRR would be immersive and fun option, but the game would lose some of the boring aspects its well known for. We can't have that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-25-2006, 05:11 PM
Contradiction Alert!

Chuck Older::
A better solution is to have the player use another aircraft that's all set to go
Chuck? Zero time for ReArm, ReFuel, and even total 100% Repair is more realistic than waiting? And don't try to tell this webboard that you actually mean a "different" aircraft as that opens another can of Realism Worms regarding World War 2 combat aviation far worse than ReArm/ReFuel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Having to wait leaves you vulnerable on your airfield, or sometimes forces you to make a decision to take off without enough if you may be bombed or strafed too soon to fully refuel. Making a challenging decision such as this can be a large part of immersive gameplay that can sustain customer interest in a product over a longer period of time than we have seen in the FB/PF sim.

Refuel or Re-arm times can be made player or server optional.

<span class="ev_code_yellow">ElTuro</span>, that was a good poast about how Arcade Instant Refly is conveniently ignored and avoided by people here who loudly advertise themselves as "wanting realism." Thanks for bringing more attention to this contradictoray behavior. Behind every behavioral contradiction lies a true motivation...my theory...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

They fear losing Instant Refly as the realistic Online servers will flock to the ReArm and ReFuel option, much like the flowering of realistic servers that used visible 3.01 Dots without any need for Maddox Arcade Text Icons, until these very popular servers all wilted when this feature was withdrawn in yet another door slammed shut on customers hoping to stay with Maddox Games' sim.

MEGILE
09-25-2006, 05:11 PM
LOMAC has RRR.

Land, taxi off the runway, hold refuel down, toggle ressupply weapons, and you're away in 1 minute.

LEXX_Luthor
09-25-2006, 05:33 PM
1 minute? Is that under time acceleration? Original Su-27 Flanker 1.0 made you wait about 5 minutes "normal time" for a full load of fuel.

The bad side...

(1) Flaker 1.0 -- they put the Re-Arm key as Ctrl+W, which is next to Ctrl+E on the keyboard, causing players to eject and end the mission game run instead of re-arming. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(2) Flaker 1.0 offered a hands-off refueling on the ground by using Shift+L, but this was the same key command as Dump Fuel when in flight...too often I took off with full fuel and only too late noticed I was half empty. You had to be sure to turn off the refueling before you took off.

Those were fun challenges to guard against, as back then the Sims would not let you map key commands to your preference.

F6_Ace
09-25-2006, 06:08 PM
I can see some point to it but what are you trying to achieve?

You take off, engage the enemy, use your ammo and fuel so you land. You take off again and engage what...the next wave of enemy...because it's unlikely that the original enemy will be still about (fighters will have RTB'd because of fuel) but I suppose you might engage the bombers either on their return trip or to catch some stragglers? Or, is it actually more likely that another set of players would have already been scrambled to deal with those?

I suppose that, if there were enough players in the air, I suppose you might engage the next 'fresh' wave...but how likely is this?

So, there are reasons for and reasons against, the most notable [against] being it is something else to test and that you can already effectively do it.

LEXX_Luthor
09-25-2006, 06:41 PM
One good example that you can't do "already" -- Instead of hitting the Instant Refly you are referring to, Me-262 players (Online) must land their hot superjet and wait a few minutes before taking off again to continue play. Landing the -262 takes a LONG time and ALOT of space, leaving the jet very open to attacks from slower prop aircraft, such as the P-51Dora. Same with taking off in the "fast" jet -- the -262 is vulnerable on takeoff.

Other players may wish to fly Red-Wing skinned Fw-190Doras or Ta-152 as cover for -262 as the jets are far out on their slow landing approach. This is one example of some additional historic realism AND gameplay challenges, both in one, that can be gained from ReArm and ReFuel. For those not liking it(**), the OPTION exists to turn the capability off, or to play on servers that allow Instant Refly instead. But as poasted above, the realistic servers will ALL move to the ReArm and ReFuel option instead of the Instant Refly, and this knowledge among all of us is causing some to Panic and poast desperate Contradictions.

For Offline play, the option enables a longer "mission" or game-run duration, provided mission designers or campaign modders build their missions to make use of the feature for the player. One of the most immersive experiences in Pacific Fighters is sitting on your carrier during an attack of enemy dive bombers. Can you take off in time?


(**) The ReArm/ReFuel Option can always be turned OFF. But it won't be, even by those claiming to be "against," as these few people are not actually against ReArm/ReFuel as they claim, as they appear to support Instant Refly and avoid discussion of this.

Chivas
09-25-2006, 08:29 PM
What are you trying to do?

-As it is now you stop and hit refly. Reappearing magically in another location or base. {Unrealistic}

With RRR.

- You taxi to the designated area for RRR and debriefing. {Realistic}{Immersive}
- Walk..run..to dispersal hut..airaid shelter.as necessary. {Realistic, Immersive}
- While in shelter..dispersal hut file mission report, check stats and mission options
-stand down (fast forward to next mission)
-scramble another flight to intercept previous or new raid after a variable time period say 5 to 20 minutes (whatever suits your fancy) (Immersive)(Realistic depending on the variable time period you set) much of this time will be taken up filing a combat report, checking stats, and mission possiblities.
-during the battle of britain there were hundreds of enemy aircraft in the air in multiple daily raids making it very possible and realistic for individual pilots and squadrons to scramble more than one mission a day.

-hit refly if you think this is a pile of rubbish, afterall its just an option you can use or trash. I just don't understand why people lobby to trash it for those that might find it more interesting and immersive than the refly button.

HellToupee
09-27-2006, 02:58 AM
-As it is now you stop and hit refly. Reappearing magically in another location or base. {Unrealistic}


as apposed to dammage magically dissapearing, ammo reappearing and fuel just appearing.

Overly complex thing for such a simple issue, for coops its one sortie, ai flights dont land and take off. DF whats the point penalise people who rtb making them wait?

Why not just have a delay on allowing refly, eg spawn time. RRR dosnt stike me as remotly realistic or even worthwhile.

-HH-Quazi
09-27-2006, 05:32 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Makes perfect sense to me and I couldn't have said it better.

But the post by Chivas above works out to some extent if we had a little first person incorporated into the sim.

Or better yet, just park your ac, close your eyes for 5 to 20 minutes imagining you are doing all those things, then come back and hit refly.

Or better than that, park your ac, get up from your chair and go to the head, then go to the kitchen for a fresh cold drink and maybe something to eat, catch up with a bit of conversation with your family members, and come back 20 minutes later and hit refly.

Either way you get to waste 5 to 20 minutes on the ground rather than flying.

Capt.Ron47
09-27-2006, 08:24 AM
Well...Flying anyway other than 100% is a game...this is suppose to be a sim....and to have the ability to rearm and refuel after you have successfuly landed and taxi to a hangar and pull inside WOULD add to the simulation. Just think about it....if you could land your damaged/no damaged aircraft at 100% settings and taxi to the serviceing hangar you deserve this added feature! Put the ability in the SETTINGS that way ALL can choose to play a arcade game or a Simulation.......~S~

El Turo
09-27-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by -HH-Quazi:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Makes perfect sense to me and I couldn't have said it better.

But the post by Chivas above works out to some extent if we had a little first person incorporated into the sim.

Or better yet, just park your ac, close your eyes for 5 to 20 minutes imagining you are doing all those things, then come back and hit refly.

Or better than that, park your ac, get up from your chair and go to the head, then go to the kitchen for a fresh cold drink and maybe something to eat, catch up with a bit of conversation with your family members, and come back 20 minutes later and hit refly.

Either way you get to waste 5 to 20 minutes on the ground rather than flying.


People, it's about IMMERSION in the experience more than about the strict adherence to realism.

Drop the straw man argumentation.

Chivas
09-27-2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-As it is now you stop and hit refly. Reappearing magically in another location or base. {Unrealistic}


as apposed to dammage magically dissapearing, ammo reappearing and fuel just appearing.

Overly complex thing for such a simple issue, for coops its one sortie, ai flights dont land and take off. DF whats the point penalise people who rtb making them wait?

Why not just have a delay on allowing refly, eg spawn time. RRR dosnt stike me as remotly realistic or even worthwhile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK...I will try and draw another picture for you.

Oleg and crew are modelling fuel tenders and other vehicles. There is a specific area of your field that has the dispersal hut and ground crew waiting for your return.

Instead of hitting refly you could taxi to the disgnated area where your ground crew is waiting. The animated sequence of the ground crew could be very simple or more complex. You don't have to see them actually refueling and rearming. After you come to a stop you have a sequence of your stepping down from the cockpit and walking to the dispersal hut (or running to a shelter). In whatever view is the easiest to implement.

In the dispersal hut you are presented with a blackboard or whatever that could display-

-missions stats
-pending mission options
-area to write your last mission report
-area where your last mission kills were verified or not.
-list of avialable aircraft if yours is too badly damaged for immediate scramble.
-option to scramble or normal takeoff procedure.
-stand down
-excelerate time if you just can't wait any longer. Or hit refly at anytime after your wheels stop for realistic police http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It would have taken time to view and type your report so your aircraft might be ready for your next mission depending on the turn around time you have set in your options.
Another sequence of you running or walking to your aircraft for next mission.

For those that feel this would be to much work for Olegs team, the ground crew sequence can be simple or complex. Just bringing a little life to your airfield would definitely enhance the realism and fun aspect of the sim.

If you still find the Refly button more realistic than this option. You still have that option. Use it. Its just that simple.

Tater-SW-
09-27-2006, 12:02 PM
I frankly think RRR is pretty silly. Particularly the REPAIR part. It's either done realistically, or it is not. If the plane requires repair, it might as well be parked, and you take another aircraft or stay on the ground. You can RRR right now, despawn, and respawn, you are repaired, refueled, and rearmed. A despawn delay would achieve the same effect, forcing you to sit on the tarmac until you are allowed to respawn.

tater

F6_Ace
09-27-2006, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-As it is now you stop and hit refly. Reappearing magically in another location or base. {Unrealistic}


as apposed to dammage magically dissapearing, ammo reappearing and fuel just appearing.

Overly complex thing for such a simple issue, for coops its one sortie, ai flights dont land and take off. DF whats the point penalise people who rtb making them wait?

Why not just have a delay on allowing refly, eg spawn time. RRR dosnt stike me as remotly realistic or even worthwhile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK...I will try and draw another picture for you.

Oleg and crew are modelling fuel tenders and other vehicles. There is a specific area of your field that has the dispersal hut and ground crew waiting for your return.

Instead of hitting refly you could taxi to the disgnated area where your ground crew is waiting. The animated sequence of the ground crew could be very simple or more complex. You don't have to see them actually refueling and rearming. After you come to a stop you have a sequence of your stepping down from the cockpit and walking to the dispersal hut (or running to a shelter). In whatever view is the easiest to implement.

In the dispersal hut you are presented with a blackboard or whatever that could display-

-missions stats
-pending mission options
-area to write your last mission report
-area where your last mission kills were verified or not.
-list of avialable aircraft if yours is too badly damaged for immediate scramble.
-option to scramble or normal takeoff procedure.
-stand down
-excelerate time if you just can't wait any longer. Or hit refly at anytime after your wheels stop for realistic police http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It would have taken time to view and type your report so your aircraft might be ready for your next mission depending on the turn around time you have set in your options.
Another sequence of you running or walking to your aircraft for next mission.

For those that feel this would be to much work for Olegs team, the ground crew sequence can be simple or complex. Just bringing a little life to your airfield would definitely enhance the realism and fun aspect of the sim.

If you still find the Refly button more realistic than this option. You still have that option. Use it. Its just that simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That actually does make some sense to do.

Tater-SW-
09-27-2006, 12:42 PM
BTW, as silly as I think this is, I'm all for having it as an option as long as nothing else suffers because of the effort it would take. I wouldn't take RRR over the ability to lasso a group of objects and copy and paste in the FMB for example.

tater

F6_Ace
09-27-2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
BTW, as silly as I think this is, I'm all for having it as an option as long as nothing else suffers because of the effort it would take. I wouldn't take RRR over the ability to lasso a group of objects and copy and paste in the FMB for example.

tater

Yes, that would be my only objection as the idea doesn't sound so bad when put in the recent terms.

Cossack13
09-27-2006, 12:53 PM
I still think it would be great fun to strafe the guys sitting on the ground as their planes were refueled.

I wonder how long it would take them to ask for a simpel "Refly" button to simulate getting into a fresh airplane?

Tater-SW-
09-27-2006, 01:35 PM
Regardless of RRR, I think it would be great if the "static" planes placed as targets had DMs that were not as crappy as Il-2 static planes, but not as detailed as flying planes (and they need not have ANY AI). They should leak, smoke, burn (if they have fuel), and break apart.

tater

Chivas
09-27-2006, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Cossack13:
I still think it would be great fun to strafe the guys sitting on the ground as their planes were refueled.

I wonder how long it would take them to ask for a simpel "Refly" button to simulate getting into a fresh airplane?

It would also be great fun shooting you down for taking the very dangerous route of attacking an active airbase. The pilots on the ground would have the option to run to nearest shelter and wait for their squad mates allready airborne to shoot your sorry @ss down. Or takeoff in a serviceable aircraft and do it themselves. I know when we had the RRR option in CFS2 squad mates used to take turns landing while the others stayed up to protect them if there were any enemy aircraft about.

They won't have to ask for the Refly button...its an OPTION that will still be there.

RRR would probably be used mostly Off-line but I know I would be looking for a server with the Refly button turned off.

LEXX_Luthor
09-27-2006, 03:06 PM
You won't have to look far. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

100% -- ALL -- of the realistic servers will disable Instant Refly the minute ReArm/ReFuel becomes available, and everybody poasting in this thread knows it. That's what *may* be causing so much Panic -- I have no other explanation for their webboard behavior -- which is visible by the derogatory slogans and non-sense contradictions poasted by a few "against" RR.

Instant Refly = Instant Refuel, ReArm, Repair. The less realistic servers may still offer the current style I-RRR, so there is no need for webboard Panic.

ReArm and ReFuel will also offer expanded Offline mission creation opportunities, and possibly, even for 3rd Part dynamic campaign generator mods.

Tater-SW-
09-27-2006, 03:18 PM
The panic is because you are right, the realistic servers will all have this RRR BS in the name of "realism." It will only actually BE realism if the time it takes to do those things is accurate, otherwise there is nearly zero difference.

Ie: we have nearly instant RRR now. A realistic turn around is 1 hour, for example. The RR does this in what, 1 minute? 2? 5? That's from 60 times faster than reality to 12X reality (and if the last R, repair, is added, the realistic turn around turns into many hours, probably, making it hundreds of times faster than reality). It results in zero increase in realism operationally---you'll still see streams of aircraft colliding in a meeting engagement. That is the hallmark of DF games (Il2, WB, AH, WW2OL etc).

It can also be LESS realistic in the case of player populations that are smaller than the number of planes that would actually be flying. Say there are 12 people on a DF server. A typical really small (think early war Malaya) strike package might be 18 bombers escorted by 20-something fighters, opposed by a similar number of fighters. Forcing the 12 people to sit around on the tarmac when there are not nearly enough players to have realistic numbers of planes in the air is silly.

What is really needed is an entirely new model for "DF" servers. It needs to combine the constant access of a DF server, and the mission based play of a coop.

Have every plane that is to be flown set up like a coop. PLanes are pilotted by people, or if not enough people, then AI. New players (or people who have been shot down) can spawn in at any time. Instead of starting at an airfield, or the airstart point like they would in a DF server, they take over one of the AI aircraft already airborn. Some ground spawn areas could be allocated for scramble aircraft as well. This would be far more realistic than any DF server with or without any form of RRR since you'd always see actual groups of aircraft operating together instead of endless streams of respawns.

tater

Chuck_Older
09-27-2006, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Contradiction Alert!

Chuck Older:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A better solution is to have the player use another aircraft that's all set to go
Chuck? Zero time for ReArm, ReFuel, and even total 100% Repair is more realistic than waiting? And don't try to tell this webboard that you actually mean a "different" aircraft as that opens another can of Realism Worms regarding World War 2 combat aviation far worse than ReArm/ReFuel. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lexx, are you getting behind some bad drugs lately?

I have not contradicted myself in the slightest

I said "A better solution", not "a more realistic scenario"

I'll thank you to take your words right the hell out of my mouth

If you cannot understand what this sentence means:

"A better solution is to have the player use another aircraft that's all set to go"

Then I will explain, for your illumination. The "A better solution" part means: heres a way that won't make you sit at your chair for twenty minutes, something that players will HOWL and PULE and MOAN about. The "is to have the player use" part means: have the player do this other thing, instead. "Another aircraft" means a different aircraft, ie: not the one you're in, for further clarification, an airframe seperate and distinct from the one you just landed that needs more fuel, ammo, and oxygen. Comprende? "That's all set to go" means: one that's already full of fuel, ammo and O2

Do you understand now? I don't give two dead rat asses what you think of zero time to rearm, refuel and "repair" (which is stupid if you ask me, and not realistic, you think they're gonna fix your plane in say, 5 minutes? What are they fixing in 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 20 Minutes? Tell me, I'd love to know), and replenish O2, because I'm not advocating that at all. You blather on about reality, but you think repair can always be done while the plane is re-armed? What repair would take the same time as refueling, and could be done at the same time? A Hurri would, in real life, require the Crew Cheif to hunt down the Squadron's Hawker Tool, correct? You know, the tool that each plane was supposed to have, but never seemed to be around? To cowl up the planes? You talk about "realism" but you seem to know half the story. They're gonna dope up the canvas on your Hurri's wings while "RRR" is going on? You sure? Airframe damage is calculated and recorded in BoB too, remember? So your "repaired" plane isn't going to be like a factory fresh one. But oh, no, "RRR" is perfectly realistic if everything's somehow done all at once for all these repairs, right? Sure. And why don't you seem to ever mention Oxygen while you read me the Riot Act about "realism", huh? Come back when you're sober or at least making sense

And don't tell me not to 'tell this community' anything at all. You act as if you're the Community Defender, and I'm Messing With the Community or something? Oh, please. Tell me it's the brown biker speed you've been shooting. You pompous git. I never said this was "realistic", that's what YOU say I posted. I said this was a BETTER solution. And also, I can't see where you get off telling people what they can and can't "tell the community" after you decide to trot out your "Contradiction Alert" BS, and then tell everyone and everyone that I posted things I didn't say. Do as I say, not as I do, eh? Good luck! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I must be the most mis-quoted member here, hands down, and it cannot be by accident that people decide to make up fantasies about what I post. You want to know what I meant? Read my post, all the words. It's right there. ZERO about how this is realistic, baby cakes. Don't put your words in my mouth anymore, they taste funny because they are BS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I d on't know what's gotten into you lately

LEXX_Luthor
09-27-2006, 06:28 PM
Tater, an optional 5 or 10 minute ReArm/ReFuel time is more historically realistic than Zero time. And unlike some seem to be accusing us of suggesting, no its not perfectly "realistic" but its something of an improvement in that area.

Mostly, its NOT "zero" time, and so even a shortened time leaves the player vulnerable on the airfield to new events in the air war above, a factor that Chivas noted in his/her poast above. This applies especially to the discussion last page on the Me-262 landing approach being needed if servers enable ReArm/ReFuel in place of Instant ReFly. As Instant Refly is for Online play only, and any kind of "Refit" -- either Instant Refly or optional timed ReFuel/ReArm, is missing now, and could be used with enjoyment by Offline players and a new generation of mission builders can extended build missions around the concept.

-----------


Lets talk to the combat flight sim community; the paying customers...

Chivas (this page)::
I know when we had the RRR option in CFS2 squad mates used to take turns landing while the others stayed up to protect them if there were any enemy aircraft about.
That calls for the historical skinned Red Wing Fw-190Doras, Ta-152s, and Bf-109s that flew airfield cover for Me-262s.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-27-2006, 06:31 PM
Chuck Older:: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
And don't tell me not to 'tell this community' anything at all. You act as if you're the Community Defender, and I'm Messing With the Community or something? Oh, please. Tell me it's the brown biker speed you've been shooting. <span class="ev_code_yellow">You pompous git</span>.


When you get this worked out, and calm down, you are invited to talk with the combat flight sim community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DmdSeeker
09-27-2006, 07:05 PM
Aces high as both: RRR and "refly".

It doesn't seem to bother any one; and why should it; as long as the refly button is still available?

It's only real use is for points *****s; but hey; even they deserve their fun; and there's nothing better than ending their streak with a well placed rocket anyway.

Tater-SW-
09-27-2006, 09:04 PM
I'd argue that a 5-10 minute RRR is not even a little more realistic than zero time. It's either realistic, or it's not realistic.

The argument of being vulnerable on the ground is silly. The PLANE should be vulnerable on the ground, but the pilot would get out of the plane, and get in a slit trench if the field were under attack. A far better solution (since we are talking about BoB) would be to have planes be persistant.

Ie: You set up a DF map by placing all the planes that belong at all the airfields as you would static planes in Il2. When a player selects a plane and spawns in, he takes one of those static planes (which becomes a flyable plane). Any static planes destroyed or damaged STAY THAT WAY, and are unavailable for spawning. One important difference? The static planes need a real DM, they need to take damage like a flyable (just like when you let AI land planes and then strafe them).

So you land, taxi to an appropriate spot, and despawn. The plane remains just as you left it and begins a realistic RR turn around (repair of anything beyond a few bullet holes would be silly). It is vulnerable for that period of time. Instead of uselessly waiting for the same plane to refuel/rearm, you grab any of the others sitting around. In the rare case where a server is so full that every single plane is taken, then you have to wait.

And it is USELESS for players to wait for RR unless there are enough players on that server to represent a realistic number of aircraft. If typical missions were 2 squadrons per side, then any less than that number of players would demand getting planes as quickly into the air as possible. The total number of planes available is set by the mission builder, so it is self-limiting realism wise---if there are fewer pilots than planes, it makes the most sense for those pilots to be airborne as much as possible. Once the pilots equals the plane numbers, only then does it make sense for anyone to wait to fly. Or would the RAF let a new wave of bombers fly in unopposed because all the pilots were waiting for their pet planes to be RRRed instead of taking the ready to go planes parked right next to them that have no pilots?

tater

Chivas
09-27-2006, 09:37 PM
I'd argue that a 5-10 minute RRR is not even a little more realistic than zero time. It's either realistic, or it's not realistic.

I don't want realistic just more realistic than the refly option. If the game were realistic we'd both be dead and not having this conversation.

The pilot never sat in his plane during rearming and refueling. He would be in the dispersal hut getting intel for his next mission or in an air raid shelter if the base were underattack, or even scrambling another aircraft if available.

I want the game to be more immersive by having to taxi to the proper area for rearming and refueling were there are fuel bowsers and few ground crew. Walking/running to dispersal hut/shelter for next sortie info/stats/file flight report, then walking/running to my aircraft/or other available aircraft for next sortie/scramble.

I have no problem your keeping your Refly button. If you find that more realistic, great.

~Salute~ Chivas

Tater-SW-
09-27-2006, 09:45 PM
In most cases I don't find it more realistic, it just is no less unrealistic than a bogus 5 minute RRR.

I have zero problem with having to taxi to the right spot (or course if we're gonna have realism I might want ground crew to help me taxi, rinding on my wing, if need be.

Again, if you exit the plane so you don't get killed during RRR, how is it different at all from hitting refly after parking the plane?

My notion---having the parked planes stay in game and damagable---is much the same, only the RRR time would be realistic.

From a simulation point of view, you'd need to demonstrate that RRR would operationally make the game more realisrtic, I tend to think the whole respawn aspect of DF servers is so unrealistic that no amount of RRR short of a realistic time would make the DF paradigm any more realistic. You still get streams of planes colliding in a meeting engagement instead of real strike packages.

tater

LEXX_Luthor
09-27-2006, 11:16 PM
Tater::
In most cases I don't find it more realistic, it just is no less unrealistic than a bogus 5 minute RRR.
Yes, we are talking about the cases of Air War simulation!

A recap if you wish to discuss this with the board...

One good example that we can't do "already" -- Instead of hitting the Instant Refly, Me-262 players (Online) must land their hot superjet and wait a few minutes before taking off again to continue play. Landing the -262 takes a LONG time and ALOT of space, leaving the jet very open to attacks from slower prop aircraft, such as the P-51Dora. Same with taking off in the "fast" jet -- the -262 is vulnerable on takeoff.

Other players may wish to fly Red-Wing skinned Fw-190Doras or Ta-152 as cover for -262 as the jets are far out on their slow landing approach. This is one example of some additional historic realism AND gameplay challenges, both in one, that can be gained from ReArm and ReFuel. For those not liking it, the OPTION exists to turn the capability off, or to play on servers that allow Instant Refly instead.

------------


Tater -- ReFuel/ReArm in aircraft carrier operations were discussed on page 5 of this thread. There is no place for a pilot to hide from bombs on a carrier stocked with explosives and aviation fuel. Being vulnerable on the ground field was a fact of World War 2 air warfare during refueling and re-arming. Virtual pilots hiding in virtual trenches would be a virtually "nice" feature to have, we may agree, but as we would be sitting only for a shortened time, we won't be THAT vulnerable, and it would take far more development resources than the simple aircraft ReFuel/ReArm, and would not provide a good return on investment of development resources.

Chivas is right ... "If the game were realistic we'd both be dead and not having this conversation."

Tater::
It's either realistic, or it's not realistic.
That scares me

That is just...scary. This is a combat flight sim. Tater, read Chivas.

LEXX_Luthor
09-27-2006, 11:24 PM
Contradiction Alert! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Tater::
I have zero problem with having to taxi to the right spot (or course if we're gonna have realism I might want ground crew to help me taxi, rinding on my wing, if need be.
We, FB/PF gamer Tater, and gamer Lexx, need a fully modelled virtual ground crew to help get our planes ready for flight and started -- but we don't have a crew and your plane is ready to fly and Dogfight. Serious combat flight sim developers know 3D animated modelled ground crew are not what customers are looking for before other more important things, such as basic effective flight/weapon/damage modelling and a simplified ReFuel/ReArm. So...We don't need modelled ground crew to either ready or refuel our plane.

Chuck_Older
09-28-2006, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Chuck Older:: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And don't tell me not to 'tell this community' anything at all. You act as if you're the Community Defender, and I'm Messing With the Community or something? Oh, please. Tell me it's the brown biker speed you've been shooting. <span class="ev_code_yellow">You pompous git</span>.


When you get this worked out, and calm down, you are invited to talk with the combat flight sim community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine. When you're willing to admit you lied about what I posted, you may do the same

I see that you think you make the rules on "who may discuss with the board" around here. What is UP with you?

If you don't like the response you get, Lexx, maybe you might ask yourself what prompted it. I don't go around posting that you say things you never said, so why should I be happy when you do it to me?

Tater-SW-
09-28-2006, 07:24 AM
One, I said I have no problem with something like RRR being added as long as the effort doesn't prevent us from getting anything more important (like copy and paste in the FMB, for example). I'm arguing about the false notion that RRR is actually more realistic than NOT having RRR. Note that I say that "instant refly" is only more realistic in cases where there are not enough players flying (20 planes should be aloft on each side, but there are only 2 pilots on one team, having them each wait 5 minutes after landing results in broken play (and why would they wait on the ground with 18 planes good to go parked next to their pet plane?)

RRR doesn't come remotely close to properly simulating CV ops. Not even close. BTW, any taxi operations on the CV shouldn't be the pilot's job, the plane should indeed be dragged to the right spot by an airdale. (animated or not). Not because it is required for realism, but because it is required, period. It would be absurd for a player to have to taxi a plane (trapped in the cockpit with a poor view) into a spot wth 6 inches clearance at the front of the deck that could destroy many planes and maybe hurt the ship when in RL the plane would be manhandled there.

As for the 262s, how is having the plane left on the tarmac after they land any less realistic than a fake RRR? (I think that players should take over static planes, and when they park planes, the planes should remain on the tarmac after they despawn). BTW, how is a lack of RRR stopping P-51s from attacking the 262 on its slow landing approach and taxi?

The "if it were realistic we'd be dead" argument is nonsense. It is a way to distract from the argument at hand, nothing more. Using that argument, we might as well dispense with ANY realism at all. The Storch should fly as fast as the Me 262, for example, might as well, if this were realistic we'd all be dead!

As I said above, I'd prefer to abandon the DF server mentality entirely. Adding a way to give it longevity is in no one's best interest IMO. We'd do better to ask for a system that blurs the distinction between what we know as "coop" in Il2, and what we call "DF." DF servers will ALWAYS end up playing the way they play now, streams of aircraft only loosely operating together. A given map (mission, whatever) is only as realistic as the least realistic part* (*not the nitty gritty details, I'm talking only about major components of the mission/gameplay). RRR could be more realistic than instant refly, but neither is as unrealistic as a stream of lone wolf planes heading to the target area alone. Adding in the RRR does nothing at all to mitigate this far far less realistic aspect of DF flying.

tater

Chuck_Older
09-28-2006, 08:19 AM
Tater, I think we see eye to eye on this

I had prepared a "real" response in addition to the one I posted above. We say almost the same thing on a couple points. I agree with your take on realism a lot:

"Here's the thing though:

Anything that is not realistic is, well not realistic. So, if you advocate something partly realistic,

you are, whether you like it or not, advocating also having something part not realistic, ie: fantasy

Players here say: Sure, I want rearm refuel and repair. There's two problems with this thinking:

Number one: they feel things like "repair" in this context is realistic. Well, they *suppose* it's realistic. What do they have to go on?

Well, they know that ground crews repaired aircraft, and rearmed them and refueled them (we'll ignore O2 for the moment because well, nobody seems to care about that little item). Fine and good.

But they also *suppose* they repaired them DURING these other processes, and they also seem to think that "repair" is like either modern avionics, in which a bad component is just swapped out (which still can take a half hour), or they think "repair" is like opening the hood on an automobile and changing an 0il filter or radiator hose.

And this is just plain wrong. This ain't the Pits at the Indy 500 folks. So, when players say they want this "realistic" aspect of WWII aviation called "RRR", what I see is misconceptipons masquerading as "realism". What this means is: fantasy is being touted as "realism", and arguments are made to defend how this "realism" can be an option. Well, it's not a realism option if you ask me, it's a fantasy option

Like I mentioned before, it's a fact that say, a Hawker Hurricane needed a special tool to decowl the planes. Each plane was supposed to have one, but the *reality* of the fact is that EVERYone, from Squadron down to Quartermaster, felt they needed a Hawker Tool, so they were as scarce as hen's teeth to the people that really actually NEEDED them. There was typically one per Squadron, same as the syringe to check glycol. Amazing, right? They couldn't get a dozen bloody syringes? Well, like it or lump it, I can quote ground crew who say they were scarce.

So simple adjustment of repairing a linkage on a carburettor (Veddy British spelling) require, you guessed it, the de-cowling of the plane. Go find me the Hawker tool, boyo! Sure thing, see you in half an hour

Do most players who want "realism" know this? Obviously not. We want "realistic combat operations", and hey, like it or not, having an accurate recreation of the Battle of Britian without ACCURATE modelling of time to rearm refuel and replensish O2 (sorry, no repair!) skews the ENTIRE thing. What this means is that Spits now get in the air MUCH too quickly for starters!

And for Number Two, well it's kind of hard to argue that the realism that YOU want is the realism that's "realistic" enough for everyone's taste, when we all know that anything less than 100% realism is some percentage of FANTASY. Realism is not a two way street, it's either 100% or it is impure so to speak.

The fact of the matter is that there MUST be concessions to realism. But making arguemunts like 'well, if this were full realism you'd die when you crashed' or something is just a cop-out. It's an easy, conveninet way to try to make people let your arguments against something slide by, because after all, we aren't really at REAL realism, right? Sure. So my P-51 should have 6 20mm cannons, because hey, you don't really DIE when your virtual pilot bites the big one, we already KNOW the sim is THAT accurate anyway

It's bunk, it's a non-argument. It's dumb to argue that it's not. What that argument says is: My idea of less-than-realistic is more accurate than your idea of less-than-realistic, so I'm right and you're wrong. Bogus

And anyway, repair of aircraft will leave a 'history' of repair for the airframe in BoB. It's not like "RRR" would be like our 'refly' with a longer wait, and hey presto! shiny new never damaged aircraft like it just rolled out of the factory

So instead of all this, why not just have the player get into an available aircraft? It's unrealistic to have a combat pilot land a plane that needs replenishment, and be able to hop in another that is ready to go? Historical contxt of whether this happened when and where aside, telling me that no, this pilot would not realistically be able to do this is just, well, a fever dream. Of COURSE he *could* do this.

All he needs is an available aircraft

So: while he's flying another plane, the time elapses to have his OTHER plane REALISTICALLY down for "RRR" (no repair, this is "replenish" don't forget), so in 15 minutes or so that pilot's ORIGINAL aircraft is AVAILABLE to another player

What's the problem?"

Tater-SW-
09-28-2006, 08:32 AM
Well said.

It gets to my other point, that planes should be persistant, and that instead of spawning on the runway, or in a hanger, etc, players should spawn into what we think of as "static" planes.

Ideally in BoB, planes would be "static" by virtue of them not having a pilot in them instead of being a grossly simplified ground object. Once they have a pilot, they would no longer be "static."

I'd prefer to see gameplay effort (this is a gameplay addition being suggested) be focused on eliminating the whole paradigm of DF servers. Most of us that fly online would probably agree that coops are the best kind of flying in this game. The problem is that we don't always have the time for a coop, or if we do, we have to find one starting around when we drop on to HL. What I seek is a coop-like system that allows players to join constantly like you can in a DF server. That's why I really want to see the ability to take over AI planes---you get the unit cohesion of offline/coop play, but it's online.

A handful of real pilots mixed into the AI makes all the difference in the world in terms of gameplay as we all know. 25% of the planes can have human pilots and the fights don't seem 25% real, they feel closer to 100% real (vs ~ 0% real vs AI). It only takes a little bit of unpredictability to really mix things up.

tater

LEBillfish
09-28-2006, 09:43 AM
Just curious........How long do you all think it takes to refuel fully, arm (lets say a 6 gunned plane) and check it over for damage an aircraft?

As I'm a little at a loss, in that the time it takes to hit refly is 1,000x faster. So why not hit refly, go take a nap, watch a movie or whatever, then come back and hit fly as there is your realistic time and more so as though the pilot is under cover?

Chuck_Older
09-28-2006, 09:58 AM
Well, repairs are subjective in one sense, and objective in another. Subjective in that time depends on the damage or failure, and objective in that they aren't likely to fix a damaged plane on the ramp, while refueling, to send back into battle, since the repairs take more time that that, and also the pl;ane needs to be checked out afterwards. So a battle-damaged plane isn't likely to take up room on the tarmac next to the pl;anes being serviced for the next fight, which are undamaged

But re-arm, refuel and replenish O2 on a Hurri was about 11 minutes, while a Spit Mk1 was about twenty

Tater-SW-
09-28-2006, 10:08 AM
I found a figure of 26 minutes to R/R a Spitfire, and 9 minutes for a hurri. The last "R," REPAIR is another matter. I'd say that no repair would be the proper way to go.

I think those are pretty optimistic times, though.

The problem is that if the time doesn't reach some critical length, it won't matter gameplay wise, particularly given the way DF servers end up being gameplay wise---there'd always be some plane taking off, so individual pilots would be delayed, but we'd still see an endless stream of planes taking off.

BTW, one of my favorite things to do is to strafe airfields. Since the statci plane targets are so amazingly unsatisfying, I prefer "real" planes parked at the field. That's all this RRR is really for, to create strafing targets (some would say "vulching" but I don't buy the negative connotation as a 5th AF fan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ). There are better ways to create satisfying strafing targets---give the static planes a decent DM (same as a flyable, just delete the AI).

tater

LEBillfish
09-28-2006, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
...........But re-arm, refuel and replenish O2 on a Hurri was about 11 minutes, while a Spit Mk1 was about twenty

So 5 seconds to hit refly then fly, vs. 11 minutes in perfect conditions.....So how is that a problem for those who want a rearm and refuel button? Sounds like we already have it.

Perhaps a more worthwhile feature would be a timer wherein once you hit refly, you can't get back into the game for 15 minutes and the plane remains where you parked it (or in the case of a carrier where they'd move it to) until you either can come back in or leave the game.....Switchable of course.....The damage aspect simply the same, it just stays as is so if you lost a whole bank of guns silly you for going back out.

Tater-SW-
09-28-2006, 10:23 AM
This is an issue for DF servers, basically. The end result is that the only delay will be the first "wave" of planes to respawn. Anyone gets shot down, they hit refly. Their plane is too damaged to RRR, they hit refly (creating an incentive to crash on landing bad enough to trash the plane, but good enough to walk away from).

Those planes that RTB and RR will do so at different times. If you have 10 guys flying on 1 side, their take offs will likely be spread evenly out. With the delay, the separation between planes taking off will be IDENTICAL, just offset by the first RR delay. That's why I say it will make no difference. In RL, it was more likely for the whole squadron to land (maybe strung out a little), the RR, then TO as a GROUP.

tater

Chuck_Older
09-28-2006, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
...........But re-arm, refuel and replenish O2 on a Hurri was about 11 minutes, while a Spit Mk1 was about twenty

So 5 seconds to hit refly then fly, vs. 11 minutes in perfect conditions.....So how is that a problem for those who want a rearm and refuel button? Sounds like we already have it.

Perhaps a more worthwhile feature would be a timer wherein once you hit refly, you can't get back into the game for 15 minutes and the plane remains where you parked it (or in the case of a carrier where they'd move it to) until you either can come back in or leave the game.....Switchable of course.....The damage aspect simply the same, it just stays as is so if you lost a whole bank of guns silly you for going back out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not really sure what you're asking. Obviously, there's a world of difference between 5 seconds and 11 minutes but I know this isn't what you're getting at

What I'm saying is that it seems to me to make a heck of a lot more sense to have a player in queue for an available aircraft than to have an arbitrary and very unrealistic time of say 20 seconds or even 5 minutes

I land, I need ammo. I'm in queue for an available a/c. The sim realistically calculates rearm time, but you landed for re-arm 15 minutes ago. Your 'old' aircraft is unoccupied. I can just hop in and go without waiting. tater lands for more ammo five minutes later. He has potentially a 6 minute wait, so he can get into my 'old' aircraft that has been undergoing re-armamment

This sould be quite an incentive during an online war- you need to bring your crate back to base, or else, the pool of avaialble planes is lowered

Now of course this is just an idea and of course it can't cover all situations, but this is the gneral thing I'm talking about. The time passes and it may be long, but you as a player don't have to wait at all, potentially, to go fly again. All you need is an available aircraft

Tater-SW-
09-28-2006, 11:14 AM
^^^^exactly.

And the planes being rearmed are persistant in the game world. You land, taxi, exit the plane, and it sits where you left it until ready (with a fuel bowser ready to torch the thing when a tracer hits it).

Damaged planes is another matter entirely. Basically below some threshhold (just holes) they wouldn't bother doing anything at all, but above a certain point it would be virtually impossible to fix during a single "map" on a DF server---particularly with the airfield under continuous attack.

And with all that, the planes will still be serially taking off and flying in a strung out line towards the enemy instead of as a squadron 99.99999% of the time. So RR changes zip in gameplay (though I really like the idea of finite numbers of planes---data that should be able to be passed to the next mission, BTW (total count of planes and all targets, with the abilty to add new ones on a schedule).

tater

Chivas
09-28-2006, 12:12 PM
The simmers that asked for RRR just wanted alittle more immersion. We wanted our home base to come to life instead of the sterile atmosphere we have presently.

The detractors of the option brought up the realism issue saying it would take hours to RRR. We didn't want total realism just more immersion. Sure we came back with the statement that RRR is more realistic than the Refly button, certainly more immersive.

This option I'm sure would be appreciated by the multitude of off-line players that could set the time of the Refuel, Rearm, and select another aircraft if the Repairs were to extensive. Selecting another aircraft off-line would be no problem as your pilot could bump an AI pilot with alot of whinning. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sure there is an On-line issue because its hard to get 20 flyers to agree on anything. Alot would just like to toss out the landing all together, hit refly, and spawn into another aircraft at 3000ft. I'm also sure that there would be alot of simmers on-line who would enjoy the stratagies(sp?) necessary to implement a RRR system.

An optimal turnaround time of refuel and rearm of a WW2 aircraft can be in minutes as demonstrated during the Battle of Britain. Who cares what time an off-line player sets for his personal turn around. Personally my turn around time would be the time it takes to -walk/run to dispersal hut/shelter
-check last mission stats
-file flight report
-submit kills for verification
-check next mission options
-plus a short wait for a scramble if one is immenent
-walk to my aircraft for next mission (showing a short sequence of the ground crew jumping off my aircraft, just having finished the turn around.
-that time might be around 5-15 minutes, but again who cares how much time it takes, its still more emmersive than hitting the refly button.

As regards to on-line play. I don't see any problems with airfield congestion. My experience with 50 people on-line suggests there were only about 3 people on airfield at any time. Actually there would be alot less deaths caused by the infamous Respawn kills. There would not be any aircraft magically appearing infront of you anymore. Aircraft carrier opts (not an issue in the BOB) would definitely be more challenging, but I'm sure the servers would soon set up a workable option.

The pilots would either be taking off seperately or waiting to take off in a group line abreast as done during the Battle of Britain.

We are all here for the immersion of being a world war two pilot. Most of us arn't hear with stop watches or counting rivets to somehow display their infinite knowledge of World War 2 combat realism.

I'm here for alittle immersion and hopefully some fun flying off-line and on-line.

I know my spelling and grammer sucks.

Tater-SW-
09-28-2006, 12:25 PM
I'm all for immersion. I just don't think the off-camera RRR adds much. Haxing to taxi to a revetment, etc, then having AI vehicles drive up, and maybe even ground crew, THAT would be immersive.

tater

Chuck_Older
09-28-2006, 12:31 PM
Chivas-

immersion is fine, but you're telling me that "realism" is not related to immersion here

If "immersion" does not include some semblance of the way it really happened, then what's the point of "immersion". What's so "immersive" about errors?

You may call something immersive, but if I see it and know that it was done incorrectly, then what's immersive to *you* is an immersion killer for *me*

I feel you're saying that immersion needs to go only so far as to satisfy the common perception of players, regardless of whether ot not it's realistic

Immersion should work towards realism, not towards what the common misconception of realism is, in my opinion

It might seem completely normal to you to have a flight crew fix your plane while you wait in the cockpit. To me this would be a glaring departure from simulation, and towards crowd pleasing

I know concessions must be made but I strongly urge thought about just what impact changing turnaround time for aircraft means in a strategic and tactical sense. Isn't preserving the strategic and tactical history and actuality of what we are doing here a huge part of immersion?

Sterile airbases can be addressed by many things. For starters, BoB can make them chaotic, populated places instead of the ghost towns we have in FB/PF. I actually thing "RRR" doesn't really make an airbase much less sterile, it just makes it more of a juicy target, and there's zero wrong with that. I just feel we're advocating going about it the way of misconception, and then calling that immersion

Chivas
09-28-2006, 01:02 PM
It might seem completely normal to you to have a flight crew fix your plane while you wait in the cockpit. To me this would be a glaring departure from simulation, and towards crowd pleasing

Its quite clear in my posts that the pilot has walked/run to the dispersal hut/shelter while the aircraft is being serviced.

I do want there to be a sequence of the ground crew refueling and rearming my aircraft. This can be as detailed as the developer feels he can produce without investing too much effort. I don't have to actually see the whole detailed sequence. I may be that all I see is the ground crew waiting for me to park the aircraft, Then I see myself getting out of the aircraft and walking/running toward the dispersal hut/shelter. Then after the 5-15 minutes doing my post flight routine, there is a sequence of my walking/running to my aircraft with the ground crew jut climbing off my aircraft/or walking/running to different aircraft if my original is unserviceable. As said in about 10 of my previous posts.

Chivas
09-28-2006, 01:07 PM
I'm sure we will see more of the whole RRR process as the Storm of War develops into the complete air and ground war Oleg invisioned.

Something like Red Orchestra where you can walk/run to waiting tanks. We will be able to walk/run to aircraft/anti-aircraft guns/etc as your assigned designation allows.

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2006, 05:18 PM
Thanks fellas/fellattes for an improving disscussion with the flight sim community and paying customers who simply ask for more immersion through ReArm/ReFuel.


The "immersion" of ReFuel/ReArm comes not entirely from detailed 3D animated ground operations, although they would be a nice addition if the Devs have the resources to invest -- the problem with this is they will always be compared to the ground shooter games' Perfect 3D models and Perfect Animations, which are features actually needed by ground shooter games.

The core immersion offered by ReFuel/ReArm comes from the effect that the ground operation of ReFuel/ReArm has on the Air War simulation, with or without the 3D modelled ground crew -- The ReFuel and ReArm forces players to land before respawning (Online players) or to fly again in a given extended single mission (Offline players). ReFuel and ReArm can spawn a new generation of extended missions created by mission builders.


And thanks for sticking to your guns Chivas.

Chivas::
The simmers that asked for RRR just wanted alittle more immersion.

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2006, 05:49 PM
Something I'd like to bring up again from page 4 of this thread....slightly modified to present taste.

---

Granted, 20 minutes may be too much for a dogfight servers and Offline players. Maybe 10 minutes? No matter, the timing should be a player or server option, and best, the timing should scale with a set of base timings, or "oleg units" that Oleg gives...ie...

Hurricane refits in 1.0 olegunits.
P-51Dora refits in 2.5 olegunits.
Me-262 refits in 4.26 olegunits.

Now, the server, or Offline single player at home, selects a multiple that applies to the "oleg units" of all aircraft. Say, for example, the server or offline player selects a multiple of 10 minutes/unit-- ie... 10 minutes for each oleg-unit possesed by each aircraft.

Hurricane refits in 1.0 olegunits x 10 minutes/olegunit = 10.0 minutes.
P-51Dora refits in 2.5 olegunits x 10 minutes/olegunit = 25 minutes.
Me-262 refits in 4.26 olegunits x 10 minutes/olegunit = 42.6 minutes.

The base or "oleg" timings can be very roughly historical in comparison with each other, and this method should help take care of any issue of "too many players" wanting to fly Supers Jets Fighters, if it really did take Me-262 longer to refit than most prop planes (just a guess).

Even with a selected Zero time for ReFuel and ReArm, the important thing is that <span class="ev_code_yellow">landing</span>, low and slow and vulnerable, at a friendly base is required before continuing play. Zero refit time can be chosen simply by choosing Zero for the "oleg" multiple ...

Hurricane refits in 1.00 olegunits x 0.0 minutes/olegunit = 0.0 minutes.
P-51Dora refits in 1.80 olegunits x 0.0 minutes/olegunit = 0.0 minutes.
Me-262 refits in 4.26olegunits x 0.0 minutes/olegunit = 0.0 minutes.

The most important thing is players being required to land their aircraft before flying again -- with ReArm/ReFuel multiple that can be selected to give a continous range of Zero time all the way to Historical Correct Realistic time, or even never if the multiple is set very high nobody will wait. Hopefully, a simple concept such as Oleg Units can bring everybody into agreement -- ReArm/ReFuel with Zero time or Infinite Time, with Shortened Time and Historical Correct Time selectable somewhere between the extremes.

Tater-SW-
09-28-2006, 05:56 PM
What forces anyone to LAND? I land now before I despawn, I never knew there was any other option, actually. RRR creates a reason for player not to land, but to damage their aircraft, actually. Plow the runway, get a new plane instantly, land and RRR, and sit around doing nothing for X minutes.

You make a huge deal about LANDING as if there is any other option. You must fly online on EZ mode servers or something. Seriously, are there people that don't land?

If that is the case, call anyone who despawns in the air KIA.

tater

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2006, 06:24 PM
Right, there would be problems with players doing this and this would need fixing, if possible. I don't know how Online play works. For Offline play, the player should be required to land before getting Refit, or must end the mission run. He/She may start it again from the beginning, but that's not at all how Online play works. So it is a different game here.

Tater::
RRR creates a reason for player not to land, but to damage their aircraft, actually. Plow the runway, get a new plane instantly, land and RRR, and sit around doing nothing for X minutes.

--

If you want to add to this idea, I'll poast this again for all to see. Its taken from page 4 of this thread, somewhat changed...


---

Granted, 20 minutes may be too much for dogfight servers and Offline players. Maybe 10 minutes? No matter, the timing should be a player or server option, and best, the timing should scale with a set of base timings, or "oleg units" that Oleg gives...ie...

Hurricane refits in 1.0 olegunits.
P-51Dora refits in 2.5 olegunits.
Me-262 refits in 4.26 olegunits.

Now, the server, or Offline single player at home, selects a multiple that applies to the "oleg units" of all aircraft. Say, for example, the server or offline player selects a multiple of 10 minutes/unit-- ie... 10 minutes for each oleg-unit possesed by each aircraft.

Hurricane refits in 1.0 olegunits x 10 minutes/olegunit = 10.0 minutes.
P-51Dora refits in 2.5 olegunits x 10 minutes/olegunit = 25 minutes.
Me-262 refits in 4.26 olegunits x 10 minutes/olegunit = 42.6 minutes.

The base or "oleg" timings can be very roughly historical in comparison with each other, and this method should help take care of any issue of "too many players" wanting to fly Supers Jets Fighters, if it really did take Me-262 longer to refit than most prop planes (just a guess).

Even with a selected Zero time for ReFuel and ReArm, the important thing is that <span class="ev_code_yellow">landing</span>, low and slow and vulnerable, at a friendly base is required before continuing play. Zero refit time can be chosen simply by choosing Zero for the "oleg" multiple ...

Hurricane refits in 1.00 olegunits x 0.0 minutes/olegunit = 0.0 minutes.
P-51Dora refits in 1.80 olegunits x 0.0 minutes/olegunit = 0.0 minutes.
Me-262 refits in 4.26olegunits x 0.0 minutes/olegunit = 0.0 minutes.

The most important thing is players being required to land their aircraft before flying again -- with ReArm/ReFuel multiple that can be selected to give a continous range of Zero time all the way to Historical Correct Realistic time, or even never if the multiple is set very high nobody will wait. Hopefully, a simple concept such as Oleg Units can bring everybody into agreement -- ReArm/ReFuel with Zero time or Infinite Time, with Shortened Time and Historical Correct Time selectable somewhere between the extremes.

LEXX_Luthor
09-28-2006, 09:46 PM
Tater::
(last page): BTW, how is a lack of RRR stopping P-51s from attacking the 262 on its slow landing approach and taxi?
:
:
(this page): You make a huge deal about LANDING as if there is any other option. You must fly online on EZ mode servers or something. Seriously, are there people that don't land?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif You would be more accurate by accusing me of not playing Online at all, never. Guilty! Okay -- for Online play, are players today required to land first before hitting the Instant Refly? If so, we don't have a problem, although you are right there may not be any way of stopping players from logging off and joining again with no wait, or is there? The requirement to LAND before continuing play is the most important thing, more important than arguing over Refit times, and perhaps we have that already for Online play, although it happens invisibly and instantly, although there may be ways for players to get around it.


"call anyone who despawns in the air KIA." -- Sounds good to me.


Tater::
RRR doesn't come remotely close to properly simulating CV ops. Not even close. BTW, any taxi operations on the CV shouldn't be the pilot's job, the plane should indeed be dragged to the right spot by an airdale. (animated or not). Not because it is required for realism, but because it is required, period. It would be absurd for a player to have to taxi a plane (trapped in the cockpit with a poor view) into a spot wth 6 inches clearance at the front of the deck that could destroy many planes and maybe hurt the ship when in RL the plane would be manhandled there.
What we have today is "not even close." Simplified carrier deck ops would work fine, the player's aircraft jumping to the side or below decks or something. If you want to discuss modelling real life World War 2 carrier deck operations, we can discuss the business and financial costs of combat flight sim development. I think this may be related to what you are worried about -- wanting "RRR" but not at the cost of the resources spent on detailed 3D modelling, animation, and coding that the ground shooter sims require for their ground operations.

An optional wait for ReArm and ReFuel would work wonders for extended carrier missions and the mission designers. Especailly immersive would be a large carrier battle mission design. The player lands and waits some small time before the next strike/escort mission, but at the wrong time, as the player notices flak above his/her ship as dive bombers appear between the clouds. That's immersion.

Keep to your guns, combat flight sim community!

Chivas
09-28-2006, 10:39 PM
An optional wait for ReArm and ReFuel would work wonders for extended carrier missions and the mission designers. Especailly immersive would be a large carrier battle mission design. The player lands and waits some small time before the next strike/escort mission, but at the wrong time, as the player notices flak above his/her ship as dive bombers appear between the clouds. That's immersion.

Those few minutes lost the war for Japan at the battle of Midway. Theyre aircraft were stuck on the deck changing ordinance when the American Dive bombers arrived.

Philipscdrw
09-28-2006, 11:27 PM
RRR would not improve realism online, except in co-ops.

Even with full-realism, online servers aren't realistic. It's a group of mercenary pilots flying individually or in small groups for vague objectives, an airbourne free-for-all. Get a plane, take off, fight, land or crash, get a new plane. If there was an airfield with a lot of combat aircraft available, but only a handful of pilots (and this is the case on the online servers) when a pilot lands, he'd be given a fresh plane, ready to go as soon as he's got back from the toilets and had a cup of tea. This is already simulated very well with the Refly button.

But, for co-ops, RRR would be a valuable and realistic feature. As Chivas said: while the Midway pilots rearmed, their ship was bombed. Co-ops are a much more accurate simulation of real combat flying, where RRR often played an important part. And shuttling to and fro between forward air base and front lines, in a ground-attack aircraft, while a human-piloted CAP tries to stop you, would be great...

(Sorry if I'm repeating someone, didn't read the middle of this thread...)

Chivas
09-28-2006, 11:44 PM
"Sorry if I'm repeating someone, didn't read the middle of this thread."

NP Philip

We rarely read or comprehend anyone elses opinion. We just squints our eyes and try to find something we can shyte on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

~Salute~

Chivas

Philipscdrw
09-29-2006, 06:06 AM
Normally I do read entire threads before posting, but this one was too tedious - I got through the first half. Many people were saying that RRR would improve realism in dogfight servers, which makes no sense!

What would make sense for dogfight servers, is to give extra points for taxying back to the hangars after landing. It would provide enough of the 'aaargh I'm on the ground, a sitting duck, and any moment now some jabo is going to give me a 250kg gift' feeling that dogfight RRR advocates seem to want, but without the 'sitting around doing nothing' factor.

Chuck_Older
09-29-2006, 07:17 AM
All I'm after is getting immersion without sacrificing accuracy. In my opinion, as soon as "immersion" includes thigns that didn't happen, we may very well as soon have Sky Captain giving us our briefings as have innacurate depictions of ops. I know every well that game play will force concessions to accuracy and reality, but I'm quite concerned about how I'm reading about "immersion" that amounts to misconceptions of how things were actually done. Just because a lot of people expect a certain result because of their limited knowledge, that doesn't mean the result is 'immersive'. Some errors are being referred to as 'immersion', and that's a concern. What is 'immersion' in to the player who doesn't know better can very easily be 'inaccurate' to the player who knows more. The people who do know more should not suffer through these inccuracies if you ask me. For instance, the quick turnaround for a SPitfire- this has gameplay consequences in a very real sense. I don't look at DF as the goal of the sim so I don't really care if the DF crowd "loses out" much. I look at simulation as it's goal

Tater-SW-
09-29-2006, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Chivas:
Those few minutes lost the war for Japan at the battle of Midway. Theyre aircraft were stuck on the deck changing ordinance when the American Dive bombers arrived.

Not to derail the conversation, but this is actually untrue. I suggest you read the (excellent) book, Shattered Sword (really, a MUST READ for anyone interested in the PTO). There were almost no japanese planes on deck at Midway, and most (if not all) of those were fighters cycling up and down from CAP duty.

IJN doctrine armed and warmed up planes below decks in the hanger spaces, THEN moved them to the flight deck to launch. The process of taking a ready to go strike package from below to being spotted on deck ofr TO took about 45 minutes, so the IJN was 45 minutes from launching an airstrike at Midway (45 minutes from the time they stopped TO and landing operations for all the CAP fighters). The gassed and bombed up strike contributed to the terrible destruction even more than on the flight deck because they were in the enclosed spaces of the hanger decks.

tater

Tater-SW-
09-29-2006, 07:31 AM
As for immersion, I think that the DF servers could evolve into something like a continuous series of coop missions with the "spawn in flight" suggestion I made above (sounds like the "mile high club," LOL). As it stands DF servers sometime struggle for realism as much as possible, but the game doesn't really help them in this regard. I think it COULD help them be less of a furball gameplay mechanic though.

As for offline, RRR seems really pointless offline, and certainly abbrieviated RRR since offline you can compress time. The "shift to next waypoint" function could always be assumed to finish any RRR and leave you at the "restart the engine" waypoint after RRR anyway.

The other thing is that RRR is a work around for something mission/campaign builders already want. The ability to keep all end-states from a given mission for the next mission. Ie: stuff that was destroyed last mission is still destroyed on a next mission if the designer wishes it. A ship might be smoking, and it still would be next sortie, for example. If that capability were in game, you'd taxi, park, and despawn, and your plane would be where you left it when you restarted for the next mission.

tater

Chuck_Older
09-29-2006, 08:09 AM
Tater-

RRR offline would be critical for BoB. We will have the ability to either follow the real timeline, or effect how the battle was fought, there will be two choices in campaigns

So if you are playing as the Luftwaffe, RRR effects how quickly your opponent's overall strength can be re-commited to battle. If you have two raids coming over London today, and the RAF has enough Spits and Hurris to cover one, but your next raid will come in 15 minutes, you could catch the pesky Spitfires on the ground, while the Hurris will just be taking off. Unrealistically, you could concentrate attacks by fighters on airfields during these times if playing the user-influenced campaign, or you could calculate where the enemy may have forces, and of which type, in the historical mode

As an RAF player, you would need to not only husband your forces to make sure enough of them are ready for action to prevent the above, but in the 'real event' campaign, you will have the effects of Big wing versus Little wing tactics, which will effect how long your groups take to form up, which translates into time between re-fueling

I disagree, RRR should be an important thing offline

Tater-SW-
09-29-2006, 08:22 AM
If it is realistic, yes. OTOH, it depends on how much control the player has over where is is vectored to go.

In RL, a squadron would land, and RR. They'd wait on the ground to scramble until ordered to TO, correct? In that case the tools for the mission builders (passing states from one mission to the next) would deal with this.

I can see it being useful in the case of continuous action where you are ordered to patrol a certain area, land, RR, and do it again until you are dead or night comes I guess. Though I think that assuming external ground control, you could just as well do it as a new mission the same day.

tater

Tater-SW-
09-29-2006, 09:10 AM
I should clarify that I'm not against RR being in the game (repair is another story). My only point is that it is NOT the blanket "improved realism" simulation that some are claiming, and in fact most often would do nothing at all to improve operational realism.

The argument has suggested that it is somewhat more realistic, so add it. That is true, perhaps, on an individual plane basis, but operationally most planes would then wait for their flight (at least) to TO again except under extreme duress (the field under attack or something). Sure it was possible for them to RR, then fly off alone, but they usually didn't do that. It's exactly like you suggested regarding grabbing another plane instead. To be "realistic" it needs to take into account the doctrine of the period, not just what is physically possible.

I suppose my "fear" regarding RR(R) would be that all the online servers would adopt it in the name of realism when it isn't any more realistic.

tater

Chivas
09-29-2006, 11:51 AM
I'm not sure why there is a problem. Most dogfight servers wouldn't touch RRR with a ten foot pole. On-line Wars, and Off-liners would use the RRR option as they seen fit.

Options are good thing. People can set the game to be as realistic and immersive as the options will allow.
You already have the Refly button why trash the idea of RRR option that others would enjoy.

Some find the Refly button option more realistic fine.
Some would like the immersion of an RRR option.

I'm sure the Refly people would be concerned that Oleg would spend more resourse and time developing a complex RRR. At this point I would like a simple RRR for BOB that could be made more complex over the development of the Storm of War series.

It wouldn't matter how complex the RRR sequence was there would be one vehemently decrying its inacuracy while a 1000 would be enjoying the feature.

I doubt we will be seeing the feature anyway. Oleg and Luthier havn't made any positive comments about RRR. Aircraft RRR was a big part of any air battle including BOB and should be modelled in some fashion.

~Salute~
Chivas

El Turo
09-29-2006, 03:48 PM
I know every well that game play will force concessions to accuracy and reality

I guess where you anti-RRR fellas are getting bent is in equating immersion with strict, rivet-counting uber-accuracy. Even if the wait is set to something relatively short (like 2-3 minutes), that would provide 2-3 more minutes of immersion for not only the RRR-pilot, but also for potential strike aircraft. This seems like such a minor "realism" offense to me in comparison to WW view, external view, and all the other VERY unrealistic options that already exist in this game.. it seems rather silly and nit-picky to me. Like starting a huge rant-thread on the number of spokes in a Corsair's landing gear wheel assembly.

Simulation is enhanced by immersion. Sometimes immersion is slightly less than what a pilot would experience in real life. This isn't "The Sims, WWII Pilot" expansion pack where you must control every little detail of every action, motion and experience in the universe.

I don't mean to come off sounding all sarcastic and self righteous or whatever.. but sweet mother, you guys can get caught up in rivet counting and miss the forest through the trees sometimes.. just because it's more important to win an internet debate than to concede an inch of ground.

Can't we all just agree that things that make you feel more like a part of your envirnoment are typically a good addition to a flight sim, and things that aren't, aren't? The bottom line here is that RRR doesn't take away from gameplay or create any cheesy exploits, it only adds fidelity to the experience, even if it is a time-fudge. If you want to create some kind of alternate explanation, perhaps it takes you 2-3 minutes to switch planes, put them through their startup procedures and whatever.. at any rate, it represents a significant improvement IMO.

So, we'll see if something like that makes it into SOW or not. Would be cool, as it was a great part of some older sims. Time will tell I guess.

Chuck_Older
09-29-2006, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by El Turo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I know every well that game play will force concessions to accuracy and reality

I guess where you anti-RRR fellas are getting bent is in equating immersion with strict, rivet-counting uber-accuracy. Even if the wait is set to something relatively short (like 2-3 minutes), that would provide 2-3 more minutes of immersion for not only the RRR-pilot, but also for potential strike aircraft. This seems like such a minor "realism" offense to me in comparison to WW view, external view, and all the other VERY unrealistic options that already exist in this game.. it seems rather silly and nit-picky to me. Like starting a huge rant-thread on the number of spokes in a Corsair's landing gear wheel assembly.

Simulation is enhanced by immersion. Sometimes immersion is slightly less than what a pilot would experience in real life. This isn't "The Sims, WWII Pilot" expansion pack where you must control every little detail of every action, motion and experience in the universe.

I don't mean to come off sounding all sarcastic and self righteous or whatever.. but sweet mother, you guys can get caught up in rivet counting and miss the forest through the trees sometimes.. just because it's more important to win an internet debate than to concede an inch of ground.

Can't we all just agree that things that make you feel more like a part of your envirnoment are typically a good addition to a flight sim, and things that aren't, aren't? The bottom line here is that RRR doesn't take away from gameplay or create any cheesy exploits, it only adds fidelity to the experience, even if it is a time-fudge. If you want to create some kind of alternate explanation, perhaps it takes you 2-3 minutes to switch planes, put them through their startup procedures and whatever.. at any rate, it represents a significant improvement IMO.

So, we'll see if something like that makes it into SOW or not. Would be cool, as it was a great part of some older sims. Time will tell I guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Part of the environment, yes. Part of an environment built on inaccurate assumption, no. Immersion should have it's basis in reality, not misconception or assumption. How can I be Immersed by details I know are wrong?

When you take a common misconception and put it in the "reality" options, you end up with things like the "no instant success" switch we have right now

You do know how many 'reality/realism snobs' spout about how they play "Full Switch" because it's "Full real", right?

Well it's not! No real pilot had the chance to fly a mission over and over until he met his goals. But there you have it, parts of the community has that "Full Switch" mentality in some quarters, and suddenly to these people, "Full Switch" equals "Full real" ('Full Real' itself being a fallacy), and it doesn't matter if the ability to always have a successful mission is realistic or not, the common misconception is there: Full Switch is the most real. You've read about this, and so have I

This is the syndrome I'm talking about. Sure, Options are great. I'm all for them. But don't ask me to support a "realism" option that can be turned on or off, if that that isn't realistic to start with. If there was an option for "real RRR time", "Half RRR Time", "Quarter RRR time" and "Instant RRR", I'll bet you that very few people use the Full RRR time

This is why I want a pool of aircraft. You just get into an available one. You probably won't have to wait. But the real time is still modelled for your old aircraft to be "RRR"'d. The catch is, the attractive part is, that you don't wait for your a/c to get "RRR"'d- You hop into a fresh one and go. You have to land successfully, blah blah, and then you can choose which available plane in the pool you can take over. Overall, the effect of the RRR is there, but it doesn't impact the player- unless his pool of aircraft is depleted. That's a nice incentive to actually defend an airbase, and bring your plane home, with the added bonus that players might give a thought to their virtual hides ocassionally

And by the way, you've quoted me, but I'm not anti-RRR unless RRR means rearm refuel and repair. My RRR is rearm, refuel, and replensish oxygen.I wouldn't take up a jury rigged plane that just suffered battle damage and was "fixed" somehow in 15 minutes (damage that slight would probably go unnoticed for days, this happened to "Bud" Anderson's P-51 when it suffered a single rifle caliber bullet hole from ground fire), but I do need to breathe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-29-2006, 07:03 PM
Chuck, the limited aircraft Pool of new fresh aircraft idea is a workable idea, but of less immersion than waiting even a shortened time for ReFuel/ReArm. But notice this...

Chuck Older::
The catch is, the attractive part is, that <span class="ev_code_yellow">you don't wait for your a/c to get "RRR"'d</span> - You hop into a fresh one and go. You have to land successfully, blah blah, and then you can choose which available plane in the pool you can take over. Overall, the effect of the RRR is there, but it doesn't impact the player-
This *may* be what I was fearing. Those opposing ReArm/ReFuel simply fear the dissapearance of Instant Refly on good Online servers. I may be wrong, but that's what I see. On the other hand, it took a bit of time for me to see that your idea of The Pool is indeed another option for the same effect of ReArm/ReFuel, although of less immersion for those desiring or willing to undergo a "wait state."

And, why "blah blah" the historical concept of aircraft landing as it was a primary part of historical Air Warfare? Is it because landing aircraft is not part of The Exciting Dogfight(tm)? I think we are being deceptive here in accusing the combat flight sim community of not wanting "realism" when it simply asks for more immersion in the form of ReFuel and ReArm. We may agree on Repairs, I'm not too much into that, well maybe very simple things.



Contradiction Alert! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Chuck Older::
If there was an option for "real RRR time", "Half RRR Time", "Quarter RRR time" and "Instant RRR", I'll bet you that very few people use the Full RRR time.
Most or all people playing a Pacific combat flight sim will use one of...

"unrealistic" time acceleration (FB/PF).
"unrealistic" Skip to Target Area and fly to Calculated Safe Base Return Point (TargetWare).
"unrealistic" half scale maps (as developer SaQsoN and I prefer).
"unrealistic" shortened distance between artificially close opposing bases on full scale Pacific maps (another method I prefer).
"realistic" but too small Pacific maps that don't allow historical opposing bases to be on the same map to begin with (Pacific Fighters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).

All these are unrealistic. In fact, most developers offer these so the customers don't have to fly a "realistic" 4 hours over open sea in a realistic 4 hours of computer chair time.

We failed to see a bet made on whether more people will choose "half/quarter time" over "no time." I don't know. Myself, looking for the immersion of being vulnerable on the airfield/carrier during ReArm/ReFuel, will use either quarter or half time, and rarely use "no time." Does using any of the above Pacific map play options, or choosing half time for ReFuel/ReArm, make me an "inferior" simmer, or as some here accuse us, an "arcade" gamer?


Stick to your guns, combat flight sim community.

As Oleg tried to use the claim of players not wanting to wait "full time" for ReFuel/ReArm, we the paying customers must make this happen ourselves, and we can make BoB And Beyond a great success. Remember that, always.

Tater-SW-
09-29-2006, 09:58 PM
The "less immersion" with an aircraft pool vs waiting is a mistaken statement. If you were in anoperational situation where you needed to RR your plane, and get right back into the fight (even alone!), then it would absolutely be less realistic, period, for you to wait when there was a warmed up aircraft sitting there unused.

If there is no pressing need to get back airborne, then wtf is the point of RRR anyway? Gassing up for a transfer flight? Doubt the maps will be that big.

So, if you are needed in the fight, and there are excess planes, RRR is always LESS realistic. If there are more or equal pilots to planes, RRR is realistic (as long as the time is accurate).

Note that shortened RR times are not necessarily linearly more real than no RRR time ("instant refly"). Why? Because the important scale factor is the time interval between enemy waves of attack. If strikes set out as they form up, and there is a 20 minute space between them, then the RR time could be CRITICAL to the outcome. If it is realistic, the hurris get a 2d sortie vs the incoming bombers, and the spits don't because they have a 26 minute RR time vs 9 minutes.

If you make the hurri 1 minute, and the spit 2.9 minutes, they all easily have time to attack the 2d wave. In this hypothetical, the outcome is hugely different. Perhaps the LW timed such waves to deplete fighters on purpose---what do they do with a 2 minute RRR, or a 5 minute? Place the waves too close, and the CAP won't bother to land.

Again, I have no issue with adding it, but making the claim it is more immersive or realistic can easily depend on broken assumptions.

I hate 1/2 scale maps, BTW. I'd rather not get a Slot map if it were 1/2 scale, for example. the land areas should always be 1:1. If you really need to shirten the flight, cut the open sea distance. 1:2 scal Simpson Harbour would look like a mud puddle, not a serious naval anchorage.


tater

LEXX_Luthor
09-29-2006, 11:37 PM
Why are you and Chuck assuming that "fresh" aircraft were always ready to go during World War 2 air warfare? You know better than this. Not that different and fresh aircraft weren't available on demand, from time to time, as for example there are stories of Luftwaffe Aces shot down and taken by ground vehicle back to their airfields to fly again in another Bf-109.


Tater::
If there is no pressing need to get back airborne, then <span class="ev_code_yellow">wtf</span> is the point of RRR anyway? Gassing up for a transfer flight? Doubt the maps will be that big.
World War 2 history is a good reason, where we find Bf-109 pilots landing after engaging incoming B-17s, to ReFuel and ReArm, and fly again against the now outgoing B-17s.

What's up with the "<span class="ev_code_yellow">wtf</span>" ... ?


Tater, you have good ideas on the wait period regarding "waves" of incoming bombers. However, one may adjust the "waves" as coming in more closely in time, reflecting shortened refit times. And, this has not much relevance to other forms of air operations such as frontline ground support. If you wish, see page 1 of this thread for the early discussion on Romanian Hs-129 pilots flying 15 missions a day.

Tater::
So, if you are needed in the fight, and there are excess planes, RRR is always LESS realistic. If there are more or equal pilots to planes, RRR is realistic (as long as the time is accurate).
Right, you may be talking about Online dogfight servers, where "excess aircraft" are commonly available to all sides, unless the server is very biased. However, the Limited Pool is a workable idea here, but does not offer the same immersion or historical realism (aha!) as waiting for ReFuel/ReArm for those players wishing to do so.


YES, stick to your guns combat flight sim community ... Team Sim.

LEXX_Luthor
09-29-2006, 11:47 PM
Agreed! This is a tough issue with no "realistic" solution...

Tater::
I hate 1/2 scale maps, BTW. I'd rather not get a Slot map if it were 1/2 scale, for example. the land areas should always be 1:1. If you really need to shirten the flight, cut the open sea distance. 1:2 scal Simpson Harbour would look like a mud puddle, not a serious naval anchorage.
~~> "the land areas should always be 1:1. If you really need to shorten the flight, cut the open sea distance."

We agree there is no way around this, and we are not as "realistic" as we like to advertise ourselves. I like this suggestion too. Your idea is often used by designers of carrier vs carrier or carrier vs island operations. I'll add this to The List...


"unrealistic" time acceleration (FB/PF).
"unrealistic" Skip to Target Area and fly to Calculated Safe Base Return Point (TargetWare).
"unrealistic" half scale maps (as developer SaQsoN and I prefer).
"unrealistic" shortened distance between artificially close opposing bases on full scale Pacific maps (another method I prefer).
"realistic" but too small Pacific maps that don't allow historical opposing bases to be on the same map to begin with (Pacific Fightershttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).
"unrealistic" emptying of the Pacific Ocean by cramming islands/carriers closer together (TaterWare sim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif)


You know, it won't work when there is significant land masses getting in the way, and the map would be unrecognizable, and possibly even impossible to make -- the 1:1 landmass might get in the way of scaling down the ocean. Not sure about this though. But the concept Perfectly matches placing opposing aircraft carriers closer together on open ocean maps (PF Coral Sea map for example) to shorten flying times...and shorten timings between waves that reflect shortened ReFuel/ReArm times. It truly does all fit together into one subject. That's the Key we are missing in our self-delusional claims of "realism."


Stick to your guns combat flight sim community.

Chuck_Older
09-30-2006, 07:20 AM
Lexx

Buy an English dictionary and look up the word contradiction and learn what it means, because you don't know the definition

And then if you don't mind, come back here, and explain to me where I've contradicted myself, because the first time you did that, you have put words in mouth, which is also called lying, and the second time, you quoted me when I was talking about RRR times versus reality, then told me it was a contradiction when you changed to subject to other concessions to reality that the sim features. You obviously either do not understand what you're talking about, or you're talking out of your @ss

Communication ain't your forte, but being obtuse seems to be. Knock it off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

heywooood
09-30-2006, 11:52 AM
Hey Chuck - yer blazing away again.

this thread has gone around and around about what is or should be acceptable insofar as compromises for gameplay are concerned. Everyone has their own oppinion as to what is good or bad about the existing sim and its 'realism' vs its compromised or modified gameplay realism.

What is the right answer?...user adjustability.

That means map tools and mods for the user
And realism scalabilty in the user interface
That way...if I want realistic engine startup, I can select it
And if tater wants real 1:1 islands in a P)acific bathtub, he can mod it.
And if some people want to fly over 4 hours in realtime to attack a target for 45 secondes, they can select it.
And if LeXX wants to rearm and refuel during a campaign in offline mode he can select that.
And if the developers have to have triple coronary bypass everytime they read this thread, so be it.

-HH-Quazi
09-30-2006, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by heywooood:
Hey Chuck - yer blazing away again.

this thread has gone around and around about what is or should be acceptable insofar as compromises for gameplay are concerned. Everyone has their own oppinion as to what is good or bad about the existing sim and its 'realism' vs its compromised or modified gameplay realism.

What is the right answer?...user adjustability.

That means map tools and mods for the user
And realism scalabilty in the user interface
That way...if I want realistic engine startup, I can select it
And if tater wants real 1:1 islands in a P)acific bathtub, he can mod it.
And if some people want to fly over 4 hours in realtime to attack a target for 45 secondes, they can select it.
And if LeXX wants to rearm and refuel during a campaign in offline mode he can select that.
And if the developers have to have triple coronary bypass everytime they read this thread, so be it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Yea. User Adjustability. Should give everyone what they are looking for out of this sim.

LEXX_Luthor
09-30-2006, 11:49 PM
Yes, options are among the best way to attract and sustain the interest of paying customers in future upgrade products. Carrier ops beyond one flying mission is the best example, as each single flight mission does not record how much damage is done to ships for example. Tater made a good point about this last page...

Tater::
The other thing is that RRR is a work around for something mission/campaign builders already want. The ability to keep all end-states from a given mission for the next mission. Ie: stuff that was destroyed last mission is still destroyed on a next mission if the designer wishes it. A ship might be smoking, and it still would be next sortie, for example. If that capability were in game, you'd taxi, park, and despawn, and your plane would be where you left it when you restarted for the next mission.
Continuity between missions would allow players to play "full day" missions with several flights when he/she wishes, instead of having to do it all at one time, or pause the game. A "save mission" feature would do the same thing. The only thing this ideas misses is the wait for refit that can find a player vulnerable on the airfield or carrier which is of tremendous immersion for many players who would love to hear or see Flak starting to fire on their ship, look up into the sky and see enemy dive bombers dropping between the cumulus clouds. That can create intense immersion for a computer game, and this is a good thing. This is where the ReArm/ReFuel wait comes in, even if shortened. The "save game" feature would work well here too and the player would not have to keep the game loaded until the extended mission is completed.

LEXX_Luthor
09-30-2006, 11:51 PM
Hi Chuck_Older -- this is something we can talk about...

Chuck, the limited aircraft Pool of new fresh aircraft idea is a workable idea, but of less immersion than waiting even a shortened time for ReFuel/ReArm -- for those who desire the option that is. But notice this...

Chuck Older::
The catch is, the attractive part is, that <span class="ev_code_yellow">you don't wait for your a/c to get "RRR"'d</span> - You hop into a fresh one and go. You have to land successfully, blah blah, and then you can choose which available plane in the pool you can take over. Overall, the effect of the RRR is there, but it doesn't impact the player-
This *may* be what I was fearing. Those opposing ReArm/ReFuel simply fear the dissapearance of Instant Refly on good Online servers. I may be wrong, but that's what I see. On the other hand, it took a bit of time for me to see that your idea of The Fresh Aircraft Pool -- limited Instant Refly(?) -- is indeed another option for the same *basic* effect of ReArm/ReFuel, although of less immersion for those desiring or willing to undergo a refit wait, and less "realistic"(tm) (Aha!) in that it assumes fresh new aircraft are always available to pilots during World War 2 military air operations. Still, its a workable idea and indeed perhaps more suitable for the dogfight servers while an optional wait for ReFuel/ReArm is better suited for Offline play and for, as some suggested (I think), Online Co-op.

And Chuck, why "blah blah" the historical concept of aircraft landing as it was a primary part of historical Air Warfare? I think we are being deceptive, or Contradictory, in accusing the combat flight sim community of "not wanting realism" when they ask for the historical concept of ReFuel/ReArm for added immersive possibilities in their sim. We may agree on Repairs, I'm not too much into that, well maybe very simple things.



Contradiction Alert! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Chuck Older::
If there was an option for "real RRR time", "Half RRR Time", "Quarter RRR time" and "Instant RRR", I'll bet you that very few people use the Full RRR time.
Most or all people playing a Pacific combat flight sim will use one of...

"unrealistic" time acceleration (FB/PF).
"unrealistic" Skip to Target Area and fly to Calculated Safe Base Return Point (TargetWare).
"unrealistic" half scale maps (as developer SaQsoN and I prefer).
"unrealistic" shortened distance between artificially close opposing bases on full scale Pacific maps (another method I prefer).
"realistic" but too small Pacific maps that don't allow historical opposing bases to be on the same map to begin with (Pacific Fighters).
"unrealistic" emptying of the Pacific Ocean by cramming islands/carriers closer together (TaterWare sim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif)

All these are unrealistic, as is our use of any and all of these options. Developers offer one or more of these options so the customers don't have to fly a "realistic" 4 hours over open sea in a very realistic 4 hours of computer chair time.

We failed to see a bet made on whether more people will choose "half/quarter time" over "no time." I don't know. Myself, looking for the immersion of being vulnerable on the airfield/carrier during ReArm/ReFuel, will use either quarter or half time, and rarely use "no time." Does using any of the above Pacific map play options, or choosing half time for ReFuel/ReArm, make a paying customer an "inferior" simmer, or as some here accuse others, an "arcade" gamer?


---


Stick to your guns combat flight sim community. MaxGunz here and the simhq board had some old poasts describing how Old Timer combat flight sim webboard Bullies in the 1990s destroyed combat flight sims, particulary the World War 1 sim market by scaring off the publisher from supporting Red Baron. I am guessing that since the 1990s, the standard cfs webboard accusation against other cfs webboard members is "you don't want realism" or "you want arcade." Apparently, in the case of Red Baron cfs bullies, they fell to fighting among themselves over their own versions of "realism," Bully vs Bully, at least regarding Flight Models(tm), devouring each other, until the publisher walked away leaving the combat flight sim community with no World War 1 sim. Stay the course team sim. You are the paying customers, not the tiny number of cfs webboard Bullies.

heywooood
10-01-2006, 09:24 AM
I 100% agree and support the poast above

Hoarmurath
10-01-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

This *may* be what I was fearing. Those opposing ReArm/ReFuel simply fear the dissapearance of Instant Refly on good Online servers. I may be wrong, but that's what I see.

Wrong, those opposing rearm/refuel don't care about it being included in dogfight rooms. Those opposing rearm/refuel are against it in coop/offline games since it would make the coop/offline games more like dogfight, and it would be a nightmare for mission builders.

I have nothing against dogfight, but i sure don't want coop/offline play to become like that. I think that the current policy of focusing on a single mission is perfectly fine for coop/offline play, and i don't see the point of including rearm/refuel. It would not only be unrealistic, but it would also greatly raise the duration of these games. It is already hard to get people in a coop that last more than 20 minutes, and many people are already complaining about the time needed to play some offline missions, in the pacific for example.

Rearm/refuel in coop/offline would just make this even worse.

Chivas
10-01-2006, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

This *may* be what I was fearing. Those opposing ReArm/ReFuel simply fear the dissapearance of Instant Refly on good Online servers. I may be wrong, but that's what I see.

Wrong, those opposing rearm/refuel don't care about it being included in dogfight rooms. Those opposing rearm/refuel are against it in coop/offline games since it would make the coop/offline games more like dogfight, and it would be a nightmare for mission builders.

I have nothing against dogfight, but i sure don't want coop/offline play to become like that. I think that the current policy of focusing on a single mission is perfectly fine for coop/offline play, and i don't see the point of including rearm/refuel. It would not only be unrealistic, but it would also greatly raise the duration of these games. It is already hard to get people in a coop that last more than 20 minutes, and many people are already complaining about the time needed to play some offline missions, in the pacific for example.

Rearm/refuel in coop/offline would just make this even worse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most off-liners would use the RRR OPTION set to their personal taste. Most of us would probably set a shorter RRR and by the time we walked to the dispersal hut, filled our combat report out, and check next mission options, their aircraft would be ready. If not they could still have the option to, wait, select another aircraft if their aircraft is badly damaged/if aircraft available, FAST FORWARD, or hit REFLY. Most off-liners complain about the sterile enviroment of FB, the RRR option would go along way in addressing this situation.

Those that fly coops and on-line wars do that for the immersion and I'm sure many of these servers would employ some sort of RRR OPTION. There still would be servers that didn't employ the OPTION.

Philipscdrw
10-01-2006, 06:37 PM
I've wanted a persistent virtual FB warzone for years - being able to land, debrief, rest (virtually and really) as possible, brief again and take off with the same aircraft, same map, same ground objects... for that to REALLY work properly, the sim needs to be able to 'save' the game-state when you press 'end flight'.

RR(R) would give a new gameplay aspect to online dogfight servers, but it's silly to argue for or against RR(R) on the grounds of realism online - online dogfight servers are already far removed from reality. RR(R) would bring about an interesting gameplay element online, but for offline, we need persistent-gamestate missions.

Don't know about co-ops - I've flown co-ops about three times in the last two years.

LEXX_Luthor
10-01-2006, 07:56 PM
Some good points Hoarmurath, and we can handle them...

Hoarmurath::
I have nothing against dogfight, but i sure don't want coop/offline play to become like that. I think that the current policy of focusing on a single mission is perfectly fine for coop/offline play, and i don't see the point of including rearm/refuel. It would not only be unrealistic, but it would also greatly raise the duration of these games. It is already hard to get people in a coop that last more than 20 minutes, and <span class="ev_code_yellow">many people are already complaining about the time needed to play some offline missions, in the pacific for example.</span>
Yes, the historical Pacific operations between land bases and targets were generally too far to apart to allow flying more than one mission per day. Carrier operations or land based attacks against shipping were often different, and given shortened distances between carriers/ships setup by mission builders, as suggested by Tater in his/her reduced sea distance idea, would allow multiple missions in a game run.

Yes, P-51Dora escort operations to Berlin took a whole day, so multiple missions of this type were not possible during World War 2. However, Bf-109 pilots defending the Reich often ReArmed and ReFueled to take off again in multiple intercept attempts against the same B-17 bomber stream.

Frontline ground support missions can be flown multiple times, especially for Eastern Front where the distances from airfields and frontline targets were generally very short. The first page of this thread offers an excellent resource to gain insight on Romanian Hs-129 pilots who flew up to 15 missions per day, and this was the short days of November in Europe.

Thus, we cannot use the "Pacific" as our only example of players not wanting to fly long distances between opposing land bases, or we fail to share with the webboard our knowledge about the larger history of World War 2 military aviation operations beyond this very limited example.

This is interesting...if "coops" of even 20 minutes duration are having problems, perhaps there is a problem more severe than ReFuel/ReArm or the lack of it. I don't know how "coop" works, or Online play in any detail, so I'll pass this to Online players that know better. For Offline play, of course the ReArm/ReFuel option is available as an Option for the customer to use or not, as player and/or mission creator to share with others.

The "point" behind ReArm/ReFuel, at least for Offline play, is to offer the immersion of being vulnerable on the airfield or carrier during enemy air attack, as a very large part of historical Air Warfare was combat aircrew caught on the ground during ReFuel/ReArm. The best example is, indeed, from the Pacific itself. Players fighting off enemy torpedo bombers need to land on their carrier to ReArm/ReFuel as historical pilots did, and if done at the wrong time, the player could suddenly hear flak guns firing and he/she looks into the sky at enemy dive bombers approaching at high altitudes, and then diving between the clouds at the player's ship and other ships in the fleet. Players and mission creators can use the feature to offer extended multi-sortie mission game runs that won't always have to take "too long" to play.


Good work Team Sim!

Hoarmurath
10-01-2006, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
as a very large part of historical Air Warfare was combat aircrew caught on the ground during ReFuel/ReArm.

I don't know where you got that impression. A very large part? how many case can you name?

It seem to me you are trying to make a rule from an exception.

Beside that, people rearming and going all alone back into battle is definitely not immersive. The John Wayne kind of play, take off, all gun blazings, ready to win the war all alone after rearming is definitely not immersive.

The rule during ww2 was to fight with a squadron. People in online wars try to recreate fights where people fight as squadrons. If you have never played in online wars, you usually can't register alone, they take only squads, preferably squads of at least 4 people.

Having the ability to rearm/refuel in coop/offline would definitely not be immersive. Or if you want it to be immersive, you'll have to wait for your full flight to come back to base, then rearm/refuel, then take off again.

Rearm/refuel in dogfight all you want, but please, leave this out of coop/offline play.

Chivas
10-01-2006, 10:28 PM
Exactly what bothers you about RRR for off-line play. Are you not going to able to sleep at night if simmers select the RRR option while campaigning on their home computers.

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2006, 01:45 AM
Very True!

Hoarmurath::
Beside that, people rearming and going all alone back into battle is definitely not immersive. The John Wayne kind of play, take off, all gun blazings, ready to win the war all alone after rearming is definitely not immersive.
Agreed. That's an issue extended mission creators must deal with by ensuring new flights of AI aircraft spawn that the player (Offline) can join up with, until we finally see some real advances in combat flight sims such as AI aircraft that ReFuel/ReArm. Possibly in the future we can see a type of Dynamic Mission Builder (DMB) that runs during the game and creates new AI aircraft sorties across the map, for AI aircraft that survive their previous sorties, depending on new developments in the air war during gameplay -- a DMB that acts as a form of overall local air force "commander," for lack of a better word.



Hoarmurath::
LEXX_Luthor::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">as a very large part of historical Air Warfare was combat aircrew caught on the ground during ReFuel/ReArm.
I don't know where you got that impression. A very large part? how many case can you name?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Barbarossa 1941, Pearl Harbour, Midway, USAAF 8th Air Force doctrine of going after the Luftwaffe "in the air and on the ground", etc...

To borrow a phrase; the "prime directive" of World War 2 air warfare was catching the enemy air forces on the ground with their pants down. You came to a great thread to learn about historical WW2 air warfare operations and how to simulate them the best we can given the limitations of today's 40$ PC combat flight sims. Wellcome!


Chivas::
Exactly what bothers you [Hoarmurath] about RRR for off-line play. Are you not going to able to sleep at night if simmers select the RRR option while campaigning on their home computers.
Something else is going on regarding the webboard behavior seen here. I like to think they are actually supportive of ReFuel/ReArm, but are helping us by forcing us to clarify our ideas, lest the Devs mis-interpret their customers and do something silly (it happens).

Hoarmurath
10-02-2006, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by Chivas:
Exactly what bothers you about RRR for off-line play. Are you not going to able to sleep at night if simmers select the RRR option while campaigning on their home computers.

because if your scenario is made for RRR, it will not be suitable for not doing it, while if your scenario is made for not using RRR, then it will not be suitable for using it.

It is not as simple as a "difficulty switch". You have to think the mission building completely differently. Have you tried mission building? I did, and to create a mission isn't as simple as putting enough planes on the map to make sure player will meet something. You can't recreate the whole battlefield, because you can't put that many objects in a mission.

Have you ever seen the screenshot where someone had placed one sample of every plane in FB using static planes? There was not much in that mission, only those planes and a couple camera. I managed to load that mission twice. Most of the time, that simple mission would just crash the game. When you build missions, you have to be very careful of the nomber of items/vehicles you place in it, if you put to many, it will just be unplayable. And it is worst for online coops, you need to be very careful when building those.

If you want to put RRR in coop/offline play, there will be a tradeoff. I don't know which one, but you'll have to have one. Special maps with less landscape? AI simplified? No custom skins? No dynamic weather? Or something else, but you will need to get the ressources somewhere.

The ressources are barely adequate for missions without RRR that we have now.

I don't want to have to pay the price for RRR on mission building/campaigning.

Hoarmurath
10-02-2006, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

Barbarossa 1941, Pearl Harbour, Midway, USAAF 8th Air Force doctrine of going after the Luftwaffe "in the air and on the ground", etc...

Barbarossa? midway? you have examples of pilots returning alone from combat to RRR then taking off still alone to return to battle? USAAF 8AF? Beside the extraordinary pressure they were under in their bases in england, i don't remember the usaaf telling its pilots to take off alone to try to get to the battle? Pearl harbor is the only exception, and that only because so few managed to take off while the battle was raging right above their heads.

I don't need lessons on this webboard about how the aerial warfare was conducted during ww2, i already have enough books detailing the operations of RAF, luftwaffe, USAAF squadrons to know that no, they weren't sending individual planes into battle.

RRR, like dogfight play, can be fun, but immersive it is definitely not. The only place i can see where it could had any mesure of immersion, is dogfight.

Tater-SW-
10-02-2006, 09:04 AM
Pilots could be bombed to death in their tents at night by the Night Witches, Washing Machine Charlie, or via naval bombardment (the last 2 being Guadalcanal risks). Shouldn't we have to have an overnight "RRR" so our offline campaign pilots can be killed helpless on the ground as well? 8 hours sleeping is longer than the longest RRR, and more of a risk, statistically, no? So you might add a 5% risk with RRR, while ignoring a 25% risk at night. I'd rather assume that my pilot is one of the majority that didn't get killed while in the latrine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

I'm fine with adding options, I just want any such option to:

1. not take programmer effort away from a more useful option/capability.

2. have the ability for the host to toggle it.

3. if appropriate (and this is) give control of what facilities can do the new behavior (mark specific fields for RR capability, along with the time it takes).


Disconnect CV ops from any discussion of RRR, it really is kooky.

CV ops really are more complicated than PF can do accurately. Navy aircraft were shared, so the notion of waiting on RRR is silly. You'd land, and the replacement CAP would launch. You'd next fly in a couple hours at least, when the CAP landed. Unless BoB were to readdress CVs in a grossly more complex way, RRR would be totally FUBAR for CV ops, too. For the USN, planes were landed by pushing all the other planes to the front of the flight deck. A CAP might then land, but those planes would now be at the rear of the mass of planes spotted forward. A new CAP would have (likely) been launched before you landed, or they'd spot all the planes to the rear, then launch the ready to go CAP planes at the front. For IJN planes, the new CAP planes would be brought up from below on the front elevator (fighters were usually kept forward since they needed less deck to TO). Old planes would land, then be sent below (some CAP RR was done on the flight deck, too). So IJN planes could possibly do RR and have it be somewhat realistic---though they would not take off until needed as extra CAP, or the old CAP was coming down (a few hours). No few minute turn around.

tater

Tater-SW-
10-02-2006, 09:16 AM
I'd add that a new campaign system could (should?) include RR and indeed REPAIR as a setting within the FMB for between missions, perhaps tied to specific facilities/objects.

Ie: Have some ground crew objects (like the mortar crews, but with wrenches, lol). Have hangers, etc have a pull down for their "repair capacity." Use the system I proposed where the static planes have a 1:1 connection with flying aircraft. The repair facilities would then be able to repair damaged aircraft.

A small grass stripis home to a single RAF squadron of hurricanes. It's strength yesterday morning was 10 aircraft. During patrol operations, 1 was shot down, and 2 landed with severe damage. 3 more had light damage. The strip's repair facilities can repair X units of damage, meaning that between dusk tonight, and combat patrol after dawn tomorrow, they will repair all the light damage, and 1 of the severely damaged planes will be changed to moderate damage, the other will be written off and "used for parts." When you spawn in for your patrol the next AM, the unit's strength would be 7 aircraft flyable. you'd see one with little ground crew guys next to it (the game would place a "static plane" model with the cowl off, perhaps, and little crew guys). The plane written off for parts would use a very damaged model (but not totally wrecked), off to the side.

Today you are vectored to an enemy gorup inbound to your own field. You shoot a couple down, but take moderate damage to 3 planes. Meanwhile, your 'drome was bombed, and 20% of the repair capability was destroyed. The next day you might have 8 aircraft flyable, of which 3 have light damage (flyable, but will have damage).

THAT would be cool, and far more useful than the last R of RRR.

Chivas
10-02-2006, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
Exactly what bothers you about RRR for off-line play. Are you not going to able to sleep at night if simmers select the RRR option while campaigning on their home computers.

because if your scenario is made for RRR, it will not be suitable for not doing it, while if your scenario is made for not using RRR, then it will not be suitable for using it.

It is not as simple as a "difficulty switch". You have to think the mission building completely differently. Have you tried mission building? I did, and to create a mission isn't as simple as putting enough planes on the map to make sure player will meet something. You can't recreate the whole battlefield, because you can't put that many objects in a mission.

Have you ever seen the screenshot where someone had placed one sample of every plane in FB using static planes? There was not much in that mission, only those planes and a couple camera. I managed to load that mission twice. Most of the time, that simple mission would just crash the game. When you build missions, you have to be very careful of the nomber of items/vehicles you place in it, if you put to many, it will just be unplayable. And it is worst for online coops, you need to be very careful when building those.

If you want to put RRR in coop/offline play, there will be a tradeoff. I don't know which one, but you'll have to have one. Special maps with less landscape? AI simplified? No custom skins? No dynamic weather? Or something else, but you will need to get the ressources somewhere.

The ressources are barely adequate for missions without RRR that we have now.

I don't want to have to pay the price for RRR on mission building/campaigning. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is as aimple as a difficulty switch. If your system can't handle it, turn the option off. Thats the beauty of options that can be turned on as you upgrade your system. BOB will be designed just like that so it doesn't become obsolete over time.


I have built many missions with over 100 aircraft in the sky that I'm able run on my computer with no problem. Now I usually fly on Warclouds with 40+ players with atleast two or three large ground target areas for each side.

Hoarmurath
10-02-2006, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Chivas:


It is as aimple as a difficulty switch. If your system can't handle it, turn the option off. Thats the beauty of options that can be turned on as you upgrade your system. BOB will be designed just like that so it doesn't become obsolete over time.


I have built many missions with over 100 aircraft in the sky that I'm able run on my computer with no problem. Now I usually fly on Warclouds with 40+ players with atleast two or three large ground target areas for each side.

please, post some of these wonderful missions.

Chivas
10-02-2006, 12:25 PM
I don't make the Warclouds missions and I only made a few multi aircraft missions to prove to myself that FB was capable of doing Battle of Britain type missions. Those that complain about the capabilities of FB are usually lacking in personal computer capabilities. We can't obstruct options that will improve mission immersion because our personal computers can't handle the option. As we upgrade it will open up even more options for our enjoyment. That is why the IL-2 Series has stayed on our radar screens for 5 years and why the BOB series will have a shelf life much longer than that. Oleg should be getting a cut from Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and ATI for all the upgrading we will be doing. Again....if you can't afford to upgrade...don't select the OPTION.

update post. I've made a few other type missions....none worth posting...its not my cup of tea. I enjoy on-line war scenarios with mission made by people more capable than I.

Hoarmurath
10-02-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
I have built many missions with over 100 aircraft in the sky that I'm able run on my computer with no problem.


Originally posted by Chivas:
I only made a few multi aircraft missions to prove to myself that FB was capable of doing Battle of Britain type missions.

So, you made a few many, or a many few? But i would still like to see one of these missions you made to "test" if FB could handle bob style missions. Just to see how a hundred plane run on my comp. And to have a look at the way you did the scenery. You know, populating the bases and the like.

anyway, i notice that your main concern seem to be:


Originally posted by Chivas:
Now I usually fly on Warclouds with 40+ players with atleast two or three large ground target areas for each side.

You usually fly on warclouds, and you are advocating for an option that would make coop/offline more like a dogfight room.

If you can't stand the coop/offline play, please don't ruin it for others.

Chivas
10-02-2006, 04:12 PM
Hmmm...tell me how the option of RRR off-line is going to ruin your game. Obviously you don't understand the concept of turning off an option that doesn't appeal to you.

"If you can't stand the coop/offline play, please don't ruin it for others."

I enjoy Coops and Off-line and never said I didn't. Warclouds is just constantly running 24/7 COOP.
I'm sure Warclouds which tries to simulate as much as possible world war 2 combat, would use some sort of RR(R) if it were available.

I along with many others would fly alot more off-line with the added immersion of an RRR option.

Your the one trying to deny an option that many other would use.

In your world computer games would never have gotten past PONG.

Hoarmurath
10-02-2006, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
Hmmm...tell me how the option of RRR off-line is going to ruin your game. Obviously you don't understand the concept of turning off an option that doesn't appeal to you.

"If you can't stand the coop/offline play, please don't ruin it for others."

I enjoy Coops and Off-line and never said I didn't. Warclouds is just constantly running 24/7 COOP.
I'm sure Warclouds which tries to simulate as much as possible world war 2 combat, would use some sort of RR(R) if it were available.

I along with many others would fly alot more off-line with the added immersion of an RRR option.

Your the one trying to deny an option that many other would use.

In your world computer games would never have gotten past PONG.

Warclouds isn't a coop server, not even close. You want RRR for warclouds? no problem.

Have you ever played in any virtual online war? You know, like VOW, or VEF? This is where the real coop online play is. This is the people that are really trying to simulate ww2 aerial warfare as close as possible.

You don't like real cooperative games? Well, don't play them. You already have your warclouds servers.

Chivas
10-02-2006, 05:51 PM
Liking COOPs,Dogfight rooms, On-line wars, off-line, or using the FMB has nothing to do with having the RRR Option. They can all use the option or not use it.

Your arguements for not having the Option are utter nonsense.

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2006, 06:00 PM
Avoiding Webboard Discussion Alert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Hoarmurath (last page)::
I don't need lessons on this webboard about how the aerial warfare was conducted during ww2, i already have enough books detailing the operations of RAF, luftwaffe, USAAF squadrons to know that no, they weren't sending individual planes into battle.
Nobody here accused you of not having enough books. But, your books won't teach you how to simulate WW2 air warfare operations the best we can given the limitations of today's 40$ PC combat flight sims, and that's what you are invited to discuss with the webboard -- simulation. To join us, you will need to show independent thinking and an *honest* exchange of webboard ideas without computer gamer webboard slogans and hostile accusations against the combat flight sim community and [real life] paying customers...and an ability to read other's poasts and respond to them. I slip up in that too sometimes. You are not alone.

We also covered the issue of your lone "John Wayne" Blazing Guns pilot example from last page. If you wish to discuss this with the community, we can share ideas!!


Lexx (last page)::
Very True!

Hoarmurath:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Beside that, people rearming and going all alone back into battle is definitely not immersive. The John Wayne kind of play, take off, all gun blazings, ready to win the war all alone after rearming is definitely not immersive.
Agreed. That's an issue extended mission creators must deal with by ensuring new flights of AI aircraft spawn that the player (Offline) can join up with, until we finally see some real advances in combat flight sims such as AI aircraft that ReFuel/ReArm. Possibly in the future we can see a type of Dynamic Mission Builder (DMB) that runs during the game and creates new AI aircraft sorties across the map, for AI aircraft that survive their previous sorties, depending on new developments in the air war during gameplay -- a DMB that acts as a form of overall local air force "commander," for lack of a better word. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Tater also had some ideas that can be used for future advances in combat flight sims in this area.



Hoarmurath (last page)::
It is not as simple as a "difficulty switch". You have to think the mission building completely differently. Have you tried mission building? I did, and to create a mission isn't as simple as putting enough planes on the map to make sure player will meet something. You can't recreate the whole battlefield, because you can't put that many objects in a mission.
True! Its not really an Option selected by a button, but a feature that is used or not used. Mission builders may choose to create the standard "simple" missions not using ReFuel/ReArm and players may choose to play only those missions. You are good to go!

Early spawning flights either are destroyed or land and despawn over time. Later flights are spawned at a later time. Thus the number of aircraft in the air can be made roughly constant over time. Mission builders know this. You claim to be a mission builder. Thus, we find another Contradiction. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Possible Deception Alert!

Hoarmurath::
Have you ever seen the screenshot where someone had placed one sample of every plane in FB using static planes? There was not much in that mission, only those planes and a couple camera.
If I recall, the point of that "mission" was to display all aircraft next to each other, wingtip to wingtip, nose to nose, to compare relative sizes of all aircraft in that famous screenshot. This has nothing to do with playable missions. You know this. We know this. Mission builders know this. You claim to be a mission builder. Thus, if my memory of this Static Object pure test "mission" is correct (and it may not be), we may find yet another Contradiction.

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2006, 06:31 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Tater (last page)::
CV ops really are more complicated than PF can do accurately. Navy aircraft were shared, so the notion of waiting on RRR is silly. You'd land, and the replacement CAP would launch. You'd next fly in a couple hours at least, when the CAP landed. Unless BoB were to readdress CVs in a grossly more complex way, RRR would be totally FUBAR for CV ops, too. For the USN, planes were landed by pushing all the other planes to the front of the flight deck. A CAP might then land, but those planes would now be at the rear of the mass of planes spotted forward. A new CAP would have (likely) been launched before you landed, or they'd spot all the planes to the rear, then launch the ready to go CAP planes at the front. For IJN planes, the new CAP planes would be brought up from below on the front elevator (fighters were usually kept forward since they needed less deck to TO). Old planes would land, then be sent below (some CAP RR was done on the flight deck, too). So IJN planes could possibly do RR and have it be somewhat realistic---though they would not take off until needed as extra CAP, or the old CAP was coming down (a few hours). No few minute turn around.
Yes, CV deck ops, and any aspect of WW2 air combat for that matter, is beyond the ability for any 40$ PC combat flight sim to "do accurately" if by accuracy we mean identical to "real life" as you seem to have suggested earlier ("...realistic or unrealistic"}). We suggested 2 pages ago that if we wish to discuss "detailed" or "realistic" carrier deck operations, we can discuss the business and financial investments needed in making "realistic" combat flight sims.

We already talked about why the detailed carrier and airfield operations are not needed for ReFuel/ReArm to simulate Air Warfare to the level needed to sustain customer interest in their combat flight sim, although we may agree such "detail" would be very nice in a 40$ box. We may recall Luthier famously poasting here..."its not a ship sim." We don't want a Ship Simulator, and we don't want an Airfield Simulation. We do want immersive Air Warfare simulation.

For Air Warfare simulation, carrier deck ops should always be simplified or we would need two (2) simulations -- a "realistic"(tm) combat flight simulator and a "realistic"(tm) ship simulator.

Good techie info on carrier deck ops though, Thanks!

Tater last page::
Disconnect CV ops from any discussion of RRR, it really is kooky.
CV ops will be the Primary example of how ReFuel/ReArm can provide a new addition of immersion. As we talked before, the mission builders can use your (Tater) Shortened Water Map idea of shortened distances between islands (carriers) so the offensive strike/escort flights won't be so long and the defensive carrier CAP won't need to wait so long to see combat from approaching enemy aircraft.

The notion of ReFuel/ReArm to take off again on another strike mission or carrier defense mission is not "kooky" but very historical. If you wish, we can talk about how best to simulate such ReFuel/ReArm operations so they can provide additonal option of Air Warfare immersion on today's 40$ PC combat flight sims.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Hoarmurath
10-02-2006, 06:53 PM
Tater gave ideas that are for campaign play, but have nothing to do with ingame RRR.

try this :

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/hostileisland.zip

it is a simple mission, an offline race. Especially, try to record it. We had problems even with ntrack. (if you make a good time, let me know : record was 14mn 36sec in a 262, in Fb 1.2)

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2006, 07:18 PM
Yes, but they are good ideas for future advances in simming, and I don't think RePair fits in with ReFuel/ReArm but should be another different type of modelling entirely. We will see some form of Repair of both combat and flight stress damage in BoB And Beyond, between missions, and from what's been poasted by the Devs, its seems similar in basic idea to what Tater suggests.


Tater::
I'd add that a new campaign system could (should?) include RR and indeed REPAIR as a setting within the FMB for between missions, perhaps tied to specific facilities/objects.

Ie: Have some ground crew objects (like the mortar crews, but with wrenches, lol). Have hangers, etc have a pull down for their "repair capacity." Use the system I proposed where the static planes have a 1:1 connection with flying aircraft. The repair facilities would then be able to repair damaged aircraft.

A small grass stripis home to a single RAF squadron of hurricanes. It's strength yesterday morning was 10 aircraft. During patrol operations, 1 was shot down, and 2 landed with severe damage. 3 more had light damage. The strip's repair facilities can repair X units of damage, meaning that between dusk tonight, and combat patrol after dawn tomorrow, they will repair all the light damage, and 1 of the severely damaged planes will be changed to moderate damage, the other will be written off and "used for parts." When you spawn in for your patrol the next AM, the unit's strength would be 7 aircraft flyable. you'd see one with little ground crew guys next to it (the game would place a "static plane" model with the cowl off, perhaps, and little crew guys). The plane written off for parts would use a very damaged model (but not totally wrecked), off to the side.

Today you are vectored to an enemy gorup inbound to your own field. You shoot a couple down, but take moderate damage to 3 planes. Meanwhile, your 'drome was bombed, and 20% of the repair capability was destroyed. The next day you might have 8 aircraft flyable, of which 3 have light damage (flyable, but will have damage).

THAT would be cool, <span class="ev_code_yellow">and far more useful than the last R</span> of RRR.
Yes ... RR!

heywooood
10-02-2006, 07:32 PM
that just reminds me of how much I was hoping the devs would include damaged static aircraft and repair personnel along with static planes with the 'bonnets' removed - maybe in the final addon?...(for Fb/PF I mean) along with a few new crates and maybe a toolbox object praps an uncrated propeller half un-crated...

As for BoB... insofar as actually utilizing these objects or animating them ingame...that would be a nice touch - whether in campaign mode and in the manner suggested by tater (ideal) or simply as a nice bit of eye candy for FMB users to have for airfield population....

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2006, 07:52 PM
Chivas::
[to Hoarmurath] Liking COOPs, Dogfight rooms, On-line wars, off-line, or using the FMB has nothing to do with having the RRR Option. They can all use the option or not use it.

Your arguements for not having the Option are utter nonsense.
Don't let them get you down. They are helping us to clarify our ideas, some of which I never thought about.

Typically, I never really thought about the distinction between "button" option and "feature" option, until Hoarmurath poasted his/her current desire to not want to create and play missions involving ReArm/ReFuel. No simple button can decide this. Mission builders must choose to create and share missions that make use of one or the other feature, or both features...yes!

Imagine the future of mission building--

Mission builder creates an "extended" B-17 strike mission, the "extended" depending on what side the player flies. The player can enter the FMB and change to any Flyable plane, P-51Dora or Bf-109 (or Fw). The P-51 Option offers a single flight, as the P-51 packs enough Fuel and Ammo to cause even the most bitter encrusted Old Timer flight simmer to lose all Simming Stamina by the time the one-flight mission is over. The Bf-109 option involves at least two or possibly three take-offs to attack the bombers/escorts. To simulate AI ReArm/ReFuel, loosely I must admit, the mission builder must spawn AI Luftwaffe fighters during the entire combat portion of the mission. Timing/waypointing this is the hard part, and it requires guessing at AI Luftwaffe combat losses on previous flights. Even better, a new generation of FMB can help deal with spawning surviving AI after refitting and taking off again. This would be a very nice advance in the sims.

We can choose between BOTH types of gameplay in the same mission file -- with RR, and without RR. The result is a greater diversity of gameplay styles for a growing number of customers who choose to play one or the other, or possibly both, types of missions.

Hoarmurath
10-02-2006, 08:54 PM
I imagine the future of mission building with many more useful features.

Give me triggers, give me custom skins for static planes, give me non linear campaign structure.

RRR? what do you want me to do with that? When i create missions, i often miss some feature, but honestly, RRR never was one of them.

You want to ask for something really useful for mission builders? Triggers dammit, give us triggers!!!!

Tater-SW-
10-02-2006, 09:07 PM
RR doesn't do any better of a job than PF does in terms of CV ops. No better at all. The only semi-realistic way (offline/coop) to do CV ops is to have separate missions, period. RR on the deck is absurd, since when done and it should take far longer than on land since you need to abstract the spotting times, call it an hour or so), you need to spot the planes back to the rear of the flight deck, and to do so without airdales is unrealistically stupid.

There is no point at all in RR(R) for CV ops. None, zip, nada. The notion that it requires a ship simulator is the same poor argument that gave us the crappy ship DMs with no AI to take evasive action "this isn't a ship sim, be sure!" Ships simply need to be more robustly modelled, period. That includes steering AI to take evasive action (without which CV ops are way too easy anyway). It is absolutely possible to model CV ops simply, but you need to abstract things, and give up the notion of RRR in favor of descrete missions. When the game can pass states between missions, you can even remember and time increment a strike package inbound in mission 1, and have it X miles (1 hour flight time, while planes land and rearm) closer on mission 2. CVs EITHER do TO or landing ops, and they cannot do one til the other is complete. If landing ops were just done, there is a time delay before TO ops to respot the deck. Honestly, IMO that's something that you either do right, or don't bother doing at all, you might think RR is more immersive, but perhaps you aren't as interested in CV ops as I am---I can't suspend disbelief when it is fudged that way.

tater

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2006, 09:13 PM
I'll have to agree here.

Hoarmurath::
I imagine the future of mission building with many more useful features.

Give me triggers, give me custom skins for static planes, give me non linear campaign structure.
Agreed! Triggers, static skinning, better campaigns, and beyond. Player ReFuel/ReArm really only needs to be done very simply, with a few lines of code and no devouring of other development resources as Tater also hopes, even with no grafix animations, like engine start is done now in FB/PF, with no animated 3D ground crew that would have to compete in quality with the ground shooter sims. Simply taxi to one of several designated spots on an airfield, hit a key and wait for RR. Call it Invisible RR - at least we would have an option beyond the even more simplistic Instant RRR which is often called Instant ReFly for short.

I like how PF simplifies carrier deck ops by turning OFF collisons among aircraft. That was a good call given the limited resources of the dev team. If they didn't do extreme simplification, there would be NO PF carrier operations, at all. And I surprised myself by how much I enjoyed even the limited nature of PF carrier ops. The part I enjoy most is the Pacific carrier air warfare environment in the sky above, or watching the combat high overhead while sitting on the carrier.

Tater (page 9) ::
I'm fine with adding options, I just want any such option to:

1. not take programmer effort away from a more useful option/capability.

2. have the ability for the host to toggle it.

3. if appropriate (and this is) give control of what facilities can do the new behavior (mark specific fields for RR capability, along with the time it takes).
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Tater-SW-
10-02-2006, 09:18 PM
It would have been nice if they had modelled the proper braking for the arrestor cables, they stretch WAY to far. I don;t liek turning off collisions, I'd rather have you trap, then magically reappear at the front (chocked) with wings folded tightly packed.

Empty USN CVs look silly, they need to be crowded with planes, makes 'em look nice and MEAN.

tater

heywooood
10-02-2006, 09:26 PM
I agree - either have static planes w/ folded wings that can be placed on all carriers (forward of the trap zone) or - have one or two AI only carriers with populated topsides...

LEXX_Luthor
10-02-2006, 09:28 PM
Tater::
RR on the deck is absurd, since when done and it should take far longer than on land since you need to abstract the spotting times, call it an hour or so), you need to spot the planes back to the rear of the flight deck, and to do so without airdales is unrealistically stupid.
Yes, historically, as you noted, aircraft were moved to the back of the deck to take off again. Players need the abililty to at least "jump" their aircraft to the back of the deck to take off again. We agree it would be "nice" to have "realistic" airdales in a 40$ PC combat flight sim. We may discuss the business and financial investments in combat flight sims when you feel ready.

Other webboard members may poast that your idea of shortened ocean distances between Pacific islands while leaving the larger landmasses proper scale is "unrealistically stupid."

Not I however, as the concept is perfect for shortening the distance between opposing carriers which would fit a shortened time for ReFuel/ReArm. I'll just say its probably impossible to create such a map, unless the idea is applied strictly to Pacific regions with no large land masses but only relatively small islands compared to the open water area, and true scale is applied to areas with much larger landmasses that dominate the map.

heywooood
10-02-2006, 09:32 PM
Yes - back to BoB -

Question - why have hangars modeled, that seem to allow the pilot to either start from inside or taxi into or spawn within, if not for some sort of motive...?

Tater-SW-
10-02-2006, 10:27 PM
I said if there was no choice, then I'd rather have 1:1 land masses with less water between than a 1:2 scale map. I'd prefer 1:1 terrain, period. I'd only want shortened distances if the option was the terrible idea of 1:2 scale terrain or something similarly awful instead of 1:1. Since the geometry of the targets matters, shortening the open sea between is less awful than 1:2 scale.

If BoB wants to borrow just one thing from TargetWare, they should take the disengagement circle. It's the opposite of the airstart, and makes perfect sense for all kinds of missions.

The $40 box sim argument doesn't fly. There are plenty of easy ways to get planes spotted, you needn't model the physics of manhandling airplanes or naimate airdales, just have the computer "taxi" them (engine off) to the right spot automatically after you trap---collisions can be off during the process. The rate they glide into place (they can be frictionless as well, and move in any direction, it needn't even be pushing them forward and back, but even sideways) can determine the spotting time. Once spotted and "chocked" collisins would be back on again. (need a crash net in front of the cables, too)

tater

Chivas
10-02-2006, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
I imagine the future of mission building with many more useful features.

Give me triggers, give me custom skins for static planes, give me non linear campaign structure.

RRR? what do you want me to do with that? When i create missions, i often miss some feature, but honestly, RRR never was one of them.

You want to ask for something really useful for mission builders? Triggers dammit, give us triggers!!!!

Triggers now that makes sense. That would be a very immersive option that is needed in any combat flight sim.

What do I want you to do with RRR? Nothing

For those that want to do something it may take placing a fuel bowser etc near the dispersal hut, but that would be it. I'm not sure BOB had any complex runway systems, they seemed to be just an open field with hangers around the perimeter. I'm sure each field had its designated aircraft parking area near the dispersal hut. I think all the airfields will be historically setup with not much object placement required by the mission builder. The best we could hope for is the dispersal area with a few ground personnel and fuel bowsers etc. With MAYBE a short animated sequence of the ground crew doing their thing as we see ourselves walking to the disperal hut. Thats all we would see until our walk back to aircraft were we MIGHT see our crew scrambling off our prepared aircraft.

Mission design might present a few hurdles to jump, because you could design a mission that lasted most of the day with more than one sortie, but thats why your paid the big bucks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thats where triggers and available aircraft after RR would make for a very immmersive scenario.

RAF74_Raptor
10-03-2006, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
If you want realism, these feature are definitely to be avoided.

But they would be perfect for an arcade game.

You know, these planes aren't modern days formula ones, it take some time to refuel/rearm/repair them. I don't think you want to wait a couple hours (at least), before reflying?


SO realism is just hitting rfly and boom you are there in a new plane

Hoarmurath
10-03-2006, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by RAF74_Raptor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
If you want realism, these feature are definitely to be avoided.

But they would be perfect for an arcade game.

You know, these planes aren't modern days formula ones, it take some time to refuel/rearm/repair them. I don't think you want to wait a couple hours (at least), before reflying?


SO realism is just hitting rfly and boom you are there in a new plane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, realism is not playing in dogfight games.

RAF74_Poker
10-03-2006, 04:49 AM
Hoarmurath, Exactly what is your issue w/ Rearm/refuel ?
That it's unrealistic ?
If that is the case, let me ask you this ... what settings do you fly with ?
when flying w/ friends, do you call your throttle out, or use rpm/boost settings ?
Do you use the GPS map?
Do you use the speedbar ?
Do you use any external views?
Do you use only cockpit on ?
How many missions have you indeed made ?

I do make missions for online coops that I fly almost every night w/ the Horsemen.
Currently we are winding up an 85 mission Zero campaign for New Guinea - do you think I couldn't have used the re-arm refuel in a few of those - damn right I could.
would every mission have required a rearm/refuel ... nope.
But the option would have been nice.
Back to your realism issue .... during this campaign, we switched bases from Buna to Wedau.
A simple transfer mission - no enemy a/c to be seen - took over an hour to fly ... we flew it ... why ? because it was part of the campaign.
More than one mission had absolutely no combat .. why? Because that's the way it sometimes was, and making people sweat for an hour was fun !
People who complain about coops over 20 minutes are fine - I understand if they don't have time or mental patience to handle a 60 minute mission or longer. But don't cripple those of us who would fly 2 hr missions, or even longer!
Given a rearm/refuel/repair option, I quite readily see my self making an extended coop mission for the Horsemen.
Just because you don't like the option ... doesn't make it wrong.
I don't like salad ... does that mean no-one should be allowed to eat salad ?

Hoarmurath
10-03-2006, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by RAF74_Poker:
Hoarmurath, Exactly what is your issue w/ Rearm/refuel ?
That it's unrealistic ?
If that is the case, let me ask you this ... what settings do you fly with ?
when flying w/ friends, do you call your throttle out, or use rpm/boost settings ?
i do as historically, i keep quiet on the comms unless it is to warn of ennemy contacts


Do you use the GPS map?
no


Do you use the speedbar ?
no


Do you use any external views?
no


Do you use only cockpit on ?
always


How many missions have you indeed made ?
several dozens, working on a small rufe campaign right now.


I do make missions for online coops that I fly almost every night w/ the Horsemen.
Currently we are winding up an 85 mission Zero campaign for New Guinea - do you think I couldn't have used the re-arm refuel in a few of those - damn right I could.
would every mission have required a rearm/refuel ... nope.
But the option would have been nice.
Back to your realism issue .... during this campaign, we switched bases from Buna to Wedau.
A simple transfer mission - no enemy a/c to be seen - took over an hour to fly ... we flew it ... why ? because it was part of the campaign.
More than one mission had absolutely no combat .. why? Because that's the way it sometimes was, and making people sweat for an hour was fun !
People who complain about coops over 20 minutes are fine - I understand if they don't have time or mental patience to handle a 60 minute mission or longer. But don't cripple those of us who would fly 2 hr missions, or even longer!
Given a rearm/refuel/repair option, I quite readily see my self making an extended coop mission for the Horsemen.
Just because you don't like the option ... doesn't make it wrong.
I don't like salad ... does that mean no-one should be allowed to eat salad ?

Two hours mission? i think you will like this one :

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/files/midnight_raiders_2.zip

Three hours of night navigation over the gulf of finland, precision level bombing from 3000m, no ennemy opposition. It was one of my first missions, i presume i could make it better now with all new objects and planes we got since FB 1.0

Considering what i have against RRR, why don't you just read the thread?

LEXX_Luthor
10-03-2006, 06:28 AM
Very interesting. Thanks for the contribution.

RAF74_Poker::
Currently we are winding up an 85 mission Zero campaign for New Guinea - do you [Hoarmurath] think I couldn't have used the re-arm refuel in a few of those - damn right I could.
would every mission have required a rearm/refuel ... nope.
But the option would have been nice.
Back to your realism issue .... during this campaign, we switched bases from Buna to Wedau.
A simple transfer mission - no enemy a/c to be seen - took over an hour to fly ... we flew it ... why ? because it was part of the campaign.
More than one mission had absolutely no combat .. why? Because that's the way it sometimes was, and making people sweat for an hour was fun !
People who complain about coops over 20 minutes are fine - I understand if they don't have time or mental patience to handle a 60 minute mission or longer. But don't cripple those of us who would fly 2 hr missions, or even longer!
Given a rearm/refuel/repair option, I quite readily see my self making an extended coop mission for the Horsemen.
Just because you don't like the option ... doesn't make it wrong.
Yes, more optional features helps customers sustain their interest in their sim purchase over a long time, both Offline and Online...long enough time that more people keep interested in buying later game upgrades -- and that means more players available to spread among the various options.

For ReFuel/ReArm to be very effective and yes, more realistic, in the future, a type of Dynamic Mission Builder (DMB) that runs during the game needs to manage refitting and respawning AI aircraft that survived their previous missions. For such extended missions, a save gameplay feature would be nice. Don't know if that would work for Online play though. I do wonder why combat flight sims are unique in not offering save game features, or have some of them done so in the past? There may be a good technical reason for not doing this but I don't think so. Dunno. Other games offer save-game, and they are commercial successes for their developers and publishers.

Chivas (last page)::
Mission design might present a few hurdles to jump, because you could design a mission that lasted most of the day with more than one sortie, but thats why your paid the big bucks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thats where triggers and available aircraft after RR would make for a very immmersive scenario.
Add the 3rd "R" Repair for the next day's extended mission, well at least for some aircraft. The Soviets often put back into the air crashed-landed IL-2s the next day during hard frontline battle times, which says alot about the simplicity and ruggedness of that plane. A "save game" feature would allow the Offline player to play a few days' air warfare over a week or month of simmer time, at his/her leisure. Perhaps a save game feature could be used when setting up times when Online players meet. Dunno.

Chivas
10-03-2006, 08:25 PM
"Add the 3rd "R" Repair for the next day's extended mission, well at least for some aircraft. The Soviets often put back into the air crashed-landed IL-2s the next day during hard frontline battle times, which says alot about the simplicity and ruggedness of that plane. A "save game" feature would allow the Offline player to play a few days' air warfare over a week or month of simmer time, at his/her leisure. Perhaps a save game feature could be used when setting up times when Online players meet. Dunno."

Yes..Lexx...a save game feature would be a definate bonus for off and on-line play.

grifter2u
10-06-2006, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Beside that, people rearming and going all alone back into battle is definitely not immersive. The John Wayne kind of play, take off, all gun blazings, ready to win the war all alone after rearming is definitely not immersive.

The rule during ww2 was to fight with a squadron. People in online wars try to recreate fights where people fight as squadrons. If you have never played in online wars, you usually can't register alone, they take only squads, preferably squads of at least 4 people.

Having the ability to rearm/refuel in coop/offline would definitely not be immersive. Or if you want it to be immersive, you'll have to wait for your full flight to come back to base, then rearm/refuel, then take off again.

Rearm/refuel in dogfight all you want, but please, leave this out of coop/offline play.

you seem to be one of the least informed people on these boards about what really happened during ww2 regarding rearming, refueling and repairing aircraft. you also seem to believe that everybody that enjoys il2 should only ever use this sim the way you have decided to set it up the missions and options for your own personal use. the purpose of this thread is to discuss options (go look the word up in a dictionary, so you can understand that this means Hoar can still actually choose to turn it off ) that many current il2 customers believe would increase SIMULATING what happened in real life during ww2. adding this option does not require your consent or approval, however hard you might find that to understand.

if you want to contribute (maybe go look up the meaning of that word to, just in case you are confused about what these forum discussions are intended to be) in a civilised way, then give some specific historical information why it would be such an abomination to include it in il2/BoB and the merrits of your argument can be discussed. so far all you have done is loudly yapper on about what your opinion is, and seem to confuse whatever is convenient for you in your little world of current il2 use with what happened in history.


Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Beside that, people rearming and going all alone back into battle is definitely not immersive. The John Wayne kind of play, take off, all gun blazings, ready to win the war all alone after rearming is definitely not immersive.

duh ! a specific example of how wrong you really are .... from .... http://www.military.com/Content/MoreContent1/?file=dday_0033p1



L. Franz Stigler, former Oberleutnant, during WWII, and on Dec. 20, 1943, Commander No. 6, JG-27, Luftwaffe Fighter Forces, was a part of the German air force before it even became known that Germany had an air force. Stigler came from a family of pilots; his father flew in WWI and his brother, whom he had trained, was KIA in WWII.

Over the course of his career, Stigler told me he had been shot down 17 times and captured once in Africa, escaping almost immediately. On that fateful day, the Squadron Commander had shot down two B-17s, one more that day and he would have automatically been awarded the Knight¿s Cross, Germany's highest military award.

He had landed to refuel and rearm when he saw Brown's B-17 come up from behind some woods across the field where he was refueling. Stigler leaped into his plane and took off after them. He flew about 500 feet above the enemy aircraft, trying to decide the best way to finish it off. I thought I would do it the classic way, from the rear, remembers Stigler. So, I flew above and to the rear of the airplane, about 200 feet. I wanted to give his tail-gunner a chance to lift the guns, to point the guns at me. The guns were hanging down¿

The guns never rose to take aim at Stigler. Flying within 20 feet, he was able to find out the reason. I saw his gunner lying in the back profusely bleeding.. so, I couldn¿t shoot. He then flew up to the right wing and looked into the cockpit at Brown. I tried to get him to land in Germany and he didnt react at all. Stigler believes that Brown reacted the way he did partly due to the previously experienced lack of oxygen. So, I figured, well, turn him to Sweden, because his airplane was so shot up; I never saw anything flying so shot up.

He described the plane as the most badly damaged aircraft I ever saw, still flying. Stigler continued trying to get Brown to turn to Sweden because the flight would have only taken about 30 minutes; that was about all the time Stigler figured the plane to have left in her. Brown refused and continued towards England. The Commander accompanied the beaten up plane as far as he safely could. I thought, well, I hope you make it. So, I waved off and saluted him and flew back to the airport.

eww my my, catch the words there ...rearm and refuel ! and gosh he didnt have a whole squadron with him, naughty little pilot took of on his own, most unrealistic.

on a less sarcastic note i think i know partially where you are coming from, you are probably thinking of the waves of single pilots on online servers that immediatly after takeoff make a beeline for the action and jump straight into the middle of it, usually with the quick result of getting killed again. yet in some situations there was even a variation of that type of behaviour in real pilots during ww2 (a recent article in an aviation magazine documented this with real pilot reports)


Originally posted by Hoarmurath: The rule during ww2 was to fight with a squadron. People in online wars try to recreate fights where people fight as squadrons. If you have never played in online wars, you usually can't register alone, they take only squads, preferably squads of at least 4 people.
your mixing up your apples and oranges there. yes of course in ww2 fighter aircraft were organised in squadrons, because that is the way you organise a group of planes to arrive at one location all together, but that doesnt mean they ALWAY and ONLY ever fought in squadrons all the time once the action started or an engagement occured. in most situations during BoB fighters would be sent to particular locations to engage the enemy in a fairly organised way, but once the engagement started it was usually every man for himself and things became rapidly very chaotic. in the larger engagements (and most were) it was rare for a wingman to be able to stick to his lead (worse, early allied flight formations didnt even use the paired flight groupings of a wingman sticking to his leader). f you saw an enemy during the engagement you had a stab at him, and if you saw a friendly in trouble you tried to help him out. aside from that the squadron or flight leaders would periodically tell their group to disengage in a particular direction, regroup, and either re-engage as a group or go home. most of those engagements were over rapidly, with one side jumping the other by surprise and trying to shoot them in the back while they were not looking. damaged planes tried to make it back to home base, and if out of fuel might land at another friendly airfield on the way home to refuel. planes would often have widely scattered during the engagements and have become seperated, therefore making it home in little groups or as single planes. during heated and prolonged aireal battles during the most intensive BoB days/weeks it was common for fighter planes to land and refuel/rearm, and head straight back to the battle area, and no that usually didnt only happen only as well organised full squadron coming in as a group, it frequently occured with single aircraft or little groups of them that then went straight back out to rejoin their comrades . if you cant/dont-want to recreated that in your own personal online coop flights, that kool jack, just dont pretend your limited version of reality is the way it happened in real life or try and impose your fake real perception on features requested by other il2 customers who want to SIMULATE what really happened in ww2.


On 17 August 1943, the first anniversary of the Eighth Army Air Force's operational beginnings in England, a huge strike was planned - Mission 84 would consist of a shuttle flight (4th Wing) that would first bomb the Regensburg Messerschmitt factory and then fly on to bases in North Africa. In an attempt to confuse and split the enemy's defensive forces, a concurrent mission (1st Wing) would be flown with its goal being a strike on the munitions and ball bearing factories at Schweinfurt. There were five plants located there (Kugelfiscdher, VKF Werk I & II, Dutcke Star Kuglhalter and Fichtel & Sachs AG supply 52% of the Reich's munitions. Theoretically, the ball bearing plants were a major target too as their products were so necessary for the smooth running of the Nazi war machine. This second wave of bombers would not carry on to Algiers, but would have to make its way back to England almost 800 miles through enemy territory each way.

The mission started to go wrong from the beginning. England's famous fog prevented the Regensburg force from getting off on time, which was of great concern, as it could not wait more than an hour and a half if the bombers were to arrive in Africa before nightfall. One hundred and forty-six planes did finally become airborne within the 90-minute buffer, but conditions still were not good and it took over two hours for the groups to join up - fuel would be critical.

The Schweinfurt bombers remained grounded because the pea soup was even thicker inland. This threw another monkey wrench into the works. Three P-47 groups were scheduled to cover the 4th Wing and then the 1st Wing. With the delay, however, the Thunderbolts would have to refuel before they could tend to the second wave of Flying Fortresses. Command decided to delay the Schweinfurt mission even longer to allow the fighters enough time to land, refuel and rearm. This, however, would also allow the Luftwaffe fighters to do the same thing - so much for divide and confuse!

that was from ..... THE LIFE AND DEATH OF A YOUNG GREEK IMMIGRANT P-47 THUNDERBOLT PILOT DURING WORLD WAR TWO. did you notice there that both the allies and the germans were rearming and refueling ? you should be getting the point by now.

Hoarmurath
10-06-2006, 03:59 AM
Well, i wonder if someone will take any of your rant seriously. I won't.

grifter2u
10-06-2006, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Wrong, those opposing rearm/refuel don't care about it being included in dogfight rooms. Those opposing rearm/refuel are against it in coop/offline games since it would make the coop/offline games more like dogfight, and it would be a nightmare for mission builders.

I have nothing against dogfight, but i sure don't want coop/offline play to become like that. I think that the current policy of focusing on a single mission is perfectly fine for coop/offline play, and i don't see the point of including rearm/refuel. It would not only be unrealistic, but it would also greatly raise the duration of these games. It is already hard to get people in a coop that last more than 20 minutes, and many people are already complaining about the time needed to play some offline missions, in the pacific for example.
Rearm/refuel in coop/offline would just make this even worse.

wrong wrong wrong

all you are doing is describing how you personally like to use il2, which has nothing to do with the majority opinion of other il2 customers. the perfect reply was given by another poster.


Originally posted by:RAF74_Poker
Hoarmurath, Exactly what is your issue w/ Rearm/refuel ?
I do make missions for online coops that I fly almost every night w/ the Horsemen.
Currently we are winding up an 85 mission Zero campaign for New Guinea - do you think I couldn't have used the re-arm refuel in a few of those - damn right I could.
would every mission have required a rearm/refuel ... nope.
But the option would have been nice.
Back to your realism issue .... during this campaign, we switched bases from Buna to Wedau.
A simple transfer mission - no enemy a/c to be seen - took over an hour to fly ... we flew it ... why ? because it was part of the campaign.
More than one mission had absolutely no combat .. why? Because that's the way it sometimes was, and making people sweat for an hour was fun !
People who complain about coops over 20 minutes are fine - I understand if they don't have time or mental patience to handle a 60 minute mission or longer. But don't cripple those of us who would fly 2 hr missions, or even longer!
Given a rearm/refuel/repair option, I quite readily see my self making an extended coop mission for the Horsemen.
Just because you don't like the option ... doesn't make it wrong.
I don't like salad ... does that mean no-one should be allowed to eat salad ?
4H_Poker
The 4th Horseman

maybe read that twice.

the issue is that as a feature, it will be used sometimes, in some missions. it will not be used all the time in all servers and missions. it might not be needed at times, or be inapropriate, or the server owner might have it switched of. but the example Poker gives is a perfect illustration of how it would be used in an historically correct context and way.

i'll give you another example of how it happened in real life ...


After three days and 1400 tons of preliminary bombardment Admiral Jesse Oldendorf declared, "There are no more targets. I have destroyed everything." and the Marines went in. He was decidedly wrong. After one week of bitter fighting the 1st Battalion / 1st Regiment of the 1st Marines had suffered 70% casualties. Not since the civil war had casualty figures run so high. Over the strenuous objections of Colonel 'Chesty' Puller and the inflexible General Rupertus, who stubbornly insisted on costly frontal assaults, General Geiger ordered the unit withdrawn replacing it with a Regimental Combat Team from the 81st Infantry Division. At this point the attack became a siege. Close air support was crucial. After the airfield was captured Marine Corsairs would take off, make bombing or strafing runs and land again within five or ten minutes to rearm. Many pilots didn't bother to raise their landing gear. Peleliu also saw extensive use of Napalm. On the ground men used bazookas, tanks and flamethrowers to blast the Japanese strong points. Manhandling 75mm pack howitzers to the top of ridges to fire point blank into cave openings; the soldiers and Marines destroyed the Japanese positions one by one. Enduring a deadly crossfire from seemingly all directions men climbed to the top of caves and lowered satchel charges of TNT into the openings to collapse them. Armored bulldozers completed the job of sealing the hapless defenders inside

that was from... http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/AmphibiousAssaults.aspx

and heresy and blasphemy, many pilots didnt even raise their landing gear on the corsairs, i bet on your fake real servers people would get booted of the server for not raising their gear and role playing like you like it. you remind me of that annoying luitenant in "band of brothers" (the same actor who played in "friends") who keeps trying to do things his way, but has no clue of how things are done in real life). btw i wouldnt be making fun of you if you'd have tried to put a bit of thought into this and tried to make a point in a normal civilised fashion, but so far you have been an example of all that is bad about the zoo, you dont seem to have clue about how things happened in real life but seem to think that just having an "opinion" about something is enough reason to open your mouth and if you just get loud and unpleasant enough then somehow your argument becomes true, it doesnt. try and stick to historical facts ! and btw the whole purpose of a thread like this is to make il2/BoB a better sim, not make it into what you personally like or dislike in life.

and just to put you out of your misery, one of the main reasons that the battle of britain was won by the allies is because they were able to land, rearm and refuel !! it is not just a correct historicall event on specific flights, it was done so often and frequently that it was a MAJOR factor in who won that part of the war.


Why were the Germans defeated ?
1. The Germans fought too far away from their bases so that refueling and rearming were impossible. The German fighters had a very limited time which they could spend over Britain before their fuel got too low.
2. British fighters could land, refuel and rearm and be in the air again very quickly.
3. The change of targets was crucial. It is now believed that Fighter Command was perhaps only 24 hours away from defeat when the attack on the cities occurred. The breathing space this gave Fighter Command was crucial.
4. The Hurricane and Spitfire (above) were exceptional planes - capable of taking on the might of the Luftwaffe.

next time inform yourself a little better, and dont confuse a new "feature" available to all il2 customers with your personal choice of how you want to use this product.

Hoarmurath
10-06-2006, 04:23 AM
Considering that you managed to completely misinterpret everything i have said this far, trying to discuss with you would make it necessary that i repeat everything i have already said until you get the point.

Instead, i suggest you reread everything i have posted so far, and let us know of your progress at understanding any of it. It will certainly be more entertaining before you actually find out what i said.

grifter2u
10-06-2006, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Considering that you managed to completely misinterpret everything i have said this far, trying to discuss with you would make it necessary that i repeat everything i have already said until you get the point.

ai ai ai, you were completely misunderstood ? even when your own words are quoted back at you and specific answers are made to point out the inacuracy of your various statements ? i have just answered the exact text you posted ! there must have been some deep profound meaning that was hidden and far beyond words, because that part went completely over everybodies head.

all joking aside, the more you look at how things happened in history, the more important RRR seems to be (btw it is implemented in lomac afaik, and speaking to a crew chief that participated in both gulf wars it is still very much the occasion now in real life with real aircraft and helicopters).

a sector report from the real historical BoB:

11 GROUP: This Group was perhaps one of the busiest of all the groups as it had the task of not only being the closest to the enemy coast and seeing plenty of action, but had the unenviable job of protecting the capital city of London. The Group HQ was at Uxbridge, and Bentley Priory which was not too far away was the headquarters of Air Chief Marshall Hugh Dowding the Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command . Hornchurch, North Weald, Biggin Hill and Kenley were amongst the busiest of airfields during raids on London with pilots on many occasions coming in to refuel and rearm and then taking off straight away to join in on another dogfight.

sounds to me like it was the norm rather than the exeption ! and surprise surprise, it doesnt say whole squadrons came in at once like little ducks in a row does it ? it would have been single aircraft or little clusters of them, usually in radio contact with radar control and get vectored back into the action. sure cohesion was attempted, and flights tried to stay together, but you are confusing a well intentioned strategy plan with how things in fact happened in real life. during BoB it was very much "organised chaos" and a total scrable to keep everything in the air at all times to do whatever was possible to stop the enemy from gaining air dominance.

why dont you have a look at this video that was posted earlier in this same thread http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8899961403050041098&q=ww2
that was in normandy, and note the reporter doesnt say it was squadrons of planes returning to refuel and rearm, and the reporter states that this type of action was a common fact all across the normandy front at the time !

another example during the pre-BoB days...

When Fighter Command took over Hawkinge, it was decided to retain 25 Squadron who were flying Blenheims and also to reinforce them with 604 Squadron because Blenheims were needed to engage in ground attacks on any advancing German lines often flying at low levels. Hawkinge was not the best of airfields for Blenheim squadrons because for one thing it was an all grass airfield, and for the other Hawkinge was dish shaped and quite often weather conditions made landing difficult and the centre was prone to dampness. During the time of the Dunkirk operations, Hawkinge was one of the busiest of Fighter Command aerodromes being used by Hurricanes and Spitfires that came in to refuel and rearm while on operations over the French coast.

some of those longer range patrols would be more organised and returns would have been in groups of aircraft, but in the same way that the evaquation of dunkirk was done with a flotilla of boats in the "organised chaos" method, so would have been the aircover provided from england to defend the evacuating british troups.

another example of the pacific:

While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an initial force of 2,000 army and navy fighters were to fight to the death to control the skies over Kyushu. A second force of 330 navy combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using its fire support and air cover to protect the troop carrying transports. While these two forces were engaged, a third force of 825 suicide planes was to hit the American transports. As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2,000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300, to be used in hour-by-hour attacks. By mid-morning of the first day of the invasion, most of the American land-based aircraft would be forced to return to their bases, leaving the defense against the suicide planes to the carrier pilots and the shipboard gunners. Carrier pilots crippled by fatigue would have to land time and time again to rearm and refuel. Guns would malfunction from the heat of continuos firing and ammunition would become scarce. Gun crews would be exhausted by nightfall, but still the waves of kamikazes would continue.

somehow i dont think those carier pilots would have been landing and taking off as organised squadrons, do you ?

well i have made the point loud and clear, and so have other well informed posters in this thread. there is extensive evidence that RRR was a significant and important part of the historical air combat that occured during BoB. if we are claiming Oleg's BoB will be a SIMULATION of what happened in real life, then it has to be included and some thought has to be put into how it can best be implemented.

all of us are sitting behind a computer screen (a few maybe at a wide screen tv or projector screen), and we have to take account of the fact that this limits us in how we can experience what real pilots experienced in real aircraft during WW2. the key should be that we might have to compromise a little on how RRR is implemented in a computer sim, so that we try and stay as true as possible to what the actual experience was for real pilots. maybe LEXX_Luthor would like to summarise this threads sugestions, and see if we can provide Oleg with some constructive input with how to implement it in BoB, before most of the new sim is hard coded.

some issues would be:
- a compromise has to be made on the time taken to refuel and rearm. maybe a slider can be used for time that sets it from "basic" (60 sec or so) to "realistic" (10 min or so). also not all armaments stores might be rearmed maybe, depending on the theater and realistic loadout times for various munitions.
- minor repairs should be possible, like patches made over fuel leaks (as happened and still happens in real life !). patches over holes in wings etc, but maybe not extensive or complete repairs to all structural issues (like major wing holes, rudder and flaps torn off etc..). not all gauges should be functional again , and holes should stay in the cockpit glass etc. also repaired aircraft might have a limited range before failing again.
- on taxiing to the right RRR spot on the airfield, depending on the server stting the options might be: go to briefing hut and look at maps and radar reports of frontline activity, leave your damaged aircraft and see if the airfield has any other fully functional aircrafts, added points for bringing your aircraft back to home base, risk getting your aircraft completely distroyed by vulching enemy, ask base comander for car/truck transport back to your original home base (might take 5 min etc depending on distance etc)
- each airfield has a limited number of certain aircraft types, and when damaged they get repaired at a particular rate and speed (exept if the enemy has also destroyed all the hangers at that airfield for ex, or distroyed its fuel stores). also various airfields get resupplied with fresh new aircrafts at various rates, so even if all were distroyed after a set time new aircraft could arrive (like it did in real life, except if the base keeps getting bombed or is overrun etc..)

there is lots of good people on these boards that have lots of constructive and accurate information of how we can best implement this for BoB, and keep it realistic. i dont claim to be one of the experts, but i know enough to know for certain that it was a normal and regular part of life in ww2, and i have often in il2 found myself in a situation were i could have used it (in coop servers, online dogfighting and in campaigns). on longer missions i want to return my aircraft to home base, not just land it anywhere and hit refly to instantly respawn, its an immersion killer imo. also nursing home a dmaged aircraft and trying to bring it home in one piece is a nice challenge.

Hoarmurath
10-06-2006, 07:13 AM
Incredible, such a large brain, and so little of it of any use...

Well, i'll give you a chance, i'll resume.

1 - Rearm and refuel was a process that was taking a fairly long amount of time gameplay wise (repair was even longer). And no, 10 minutes isn't realistic.

2 - The more you shorten this process in game for the sake of gameplay, the more arcadish it will be.

3 - The ultimate arcadish setting would be the immediate rearm, refuel and repair. This is what we have presently in the dogfight play with the refly option.

4 - To add rearm, refuel and repair in coop/offline play would be like adding a form of refly option into them. Just a longer one.

5 - The cases were emergency rearm and refuel were of any importance in ww2 are the exception more than the rule.

6 - Rearm and refuel of individual aircraft that would be sent back alone into battle is not only an exception, but such an exceptionnal case that making it a rule would completely ruin the reason you pretend you want to add RRR for, realism.

As a conclusion, i point that adding RRR to coop/offline play in a realistic manner would be of little use, while adding it with reduced needed time would completely kill the reason why you pretend to add it, realism. I will not even think about you waiting for all your flight coming back, land, then rearm and refuel before taking off all together. This would be indeed realistic. Just be aware that the number of mechanics wasn't infinite, and that the more planes you have to RR, the longer it should take.

I would only point that the current system of no RRR allow for simulating how at least 90% of operations were conducted in ww2. I don't see the point of trying to add a feature to badly simulate the remaining 10%, while screwing what we already have.

Honestly, if they add RRR the way you want it, i think i will save some money. I want a combat flight simulation, not airquake revisited.

WOODY01
10-06-2006, 07:26 AM
Hoarmurath I agree. sorry, I dont see the point in picking apart peoples post just for an argument.

I think the RRR thing would be a waste of time, would you honestly sit around in a plane shot up and out of fuel and ammo? I wouldnt, Id instantly go looking for the newist, best fueled, most armed son of a ***** on the field. (ie refly)

Chivas
10-06-2006, 11:20 AM
Very good posts grifter.

Woody...nobody is lobbying to take the refly button away. We are just trying to add a more immersive options many others would enjoy.

Hoar...your negative comments are still total nonsense.

RRR = historical option (with variable time set for those that want something inbetween refly and reality )

Refly = a great time skip option for those that would prefer it.

Its just that simple.

grifter2u
10-06-2006, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
1 - Rearm and refuel was a process that was taking a fairly long amount of time gameplay wise (repair was even longer). And no, 10 minutes isn't realistic.
2 - The more you shorten this process in game for the sake of gameplay, the more arcadish it will be.
3 - The ultimate arcadish setting would be the immediate rearm, refuel and repair. This is what we have presently in the dogfight play with the refly option.
4 - To add rearm, refuel and repair in coop/offline play would be like adding a form of refly option into them. Just a longer one.
5 - The cases were emergency rearm and refuel were of any importance in ww2 are the exception more than the rule.
6 - Rearm and refuel of individual aircraft that would be sent back alone into battle is not only an exception, but such an exceptionnal case that making it a rule would completely ruin the reason you pretend you want to add RRR for, realism.
As a conclusion, i point that adding RRR to coop/offline play in a realistic manner would be of little use, while adding it with reduced needed time would completely kill the reason why you pretend to add it, realism. I will not even think about you waiting for all your flight coming back, land, then rearm and refuel before taking off all together. This would be indeed realistic. Just be aware that the number of mechanics wasn't infinite, and that the more planes you have to RR, the longer it should take.
I would only point that the current system of no RRR allow for simulating how at least 90% of operations were conducted in ww2. I don't see the point of trying to add a feature to badly simulate the remaining 10%, while screwing what we already have.
Honestly, if they add RRR the way you want it, i think i will save some money. I want a combat flight simulation, not airquake revisited.

you'r not he brightest kid on the block are you ? most of what you raise in your last post has already been delt with earlier in this thread, and extensive historical examples have already been given of how this occured in real life. and you'r making these illogical assumptions and conclusions that seem only based on your own prejudice and preconcieved ideas of what is "real" to you, while totally ignoring historical facts. i'll try and take things a little in slow motion for you, now pay attention.


1 - Rearm and refuel was a process that was taking a fairly long amount of time gameplay wise (repair was even longer).
no, refueling and rearming wasnt particularly lengthy or time consuming in real life. you being a gen Y prob think that anything longer than an instant quake powerup is like an eon in time, and you dont have the patience for it. many things already in this "sim" are not 1:1 correct in time, size, effect or speed. why is it so weird to you that some compromise is made to make RRR effective and usufull in the nextt il2 sim ? do you think a real spitfire has a ms keyboard and mouse, do you think it has a time acceleration button, or that the pilot looks out the window by moving a hat button ? nope, real spits didnt have a refly button either, and neither could you press pause and get up to get a cup of coffee. neither does il2 currently model pilot fatigue which was one of the most important factors in deciding the outcome of a protracted dogfight in real life during ww2. i can give you 50 more examples of these types of compromises in il2, yet you didnt seem to have noticed any of them. why is it so totally incomprehensible and traumatic to you that implementing RRR might not exactly be 1:1 compared to the time it took in real life ? and none of the constructive people participating in this thread have come up with a fixed number that it should be yet, it has been discussed in general and some time parameters have been floated around to discuss and start with. once some it is narowed down to some general features and numbers it will have to be compared with what is possible to implement in the new game engine anyway, and a "best of both worlds" version can then be implemented. to point to discuss it now is so the information can be provided to oleg and he can incorporate it.


2 - The more you shorten this process in game for the sake of gameplay, the more arcadish it will be.
no, arcade is you believing that real spitfires had a refly button, or that you getting killed allows you to still start a new mission later the same evening ! and you seem confused about what is really possible in real life. a formula-1 car can have its tires, fuel and aerodynamics delt with in 6 sec flat, a modern jetfighter can be hot pitted (go google it you ignoramus) in 10 minutes during which time they also slap on some quick patches for minor fuel leaks and skin tears ( trust me i know a crew chief who has told me how it happens in real life, and you could even see it being done on some of the CNN live footage), why is it so weird to you that to pump some fuel into a hurricane and replace its ammo belts is impossible or would take days to accomplish ?


3 - The ultimate arcadish setting would be the immediate rearm, refuel and repair. This is what we have presently in the dogfight play with the refly option.
there you go confusing concepts again, you gotta pay more attention and keep those apples and oranges apart. its already been explained to you before and illustrations have been provided to you of how it can be usefull and realistic, nobody is asking to add an instant refly for coop servers . what is needed is some ability for aircraft to refuel or rearm or do minor repairs WHEN SO NEEDED on the occasions that is appropriate on that mission LIKE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN REAL LIFE. often fligths will return without using it because they can bring their aircraft home with minor damage, or aircraft are to damaged to realistically allow for some minor repairs to be helpfull in a short space of time. pilots will still have to eject or crash or be killed when their aircrafts explode, nobody is removing that.

RAF74_Poker: I do make missions for online coops that I fly almost every night w/ the Horsemen.
Currently we are winding up an 85 mission Zero campaign for New Guinea - do you think I couldn't have used the re-arm refuel in a few of those - damn right I could.
would every mission have required a rearm/refuel ... nope.
But the option would have been nice. Hoar, is what he said so weird to you you cant understand his observation ?


4 - To add rearm, refuel and repair in coop/offline play would be like adding a form of refly option into them. Just a longer one.
do you even read what you write ? its like you are spinning around in circles chasing your own tail. its got nothing to do with refly (which is like getting a new life or a brand new aircraft), it has to do with trying to bring yourself and your aircraft home to the same airbase again in one piece when you have been on a mission, whether coop, online or in campaign mode. RRR is the way it happened in real life, and a version of this has to be implemented if the purpose of BoB is to SIMULATE what happened in real life. note that historical facts might be quite different from what Hoar might think is good fun when sitting behind a monitor in his bedroom while playing with his little joystick.


5 - The cases were emergency rearm and refuel were of any importance in ww2 are the exception more than the rule.
i am starting to believe some basic concepts are just to difficult for you to understand. it has been explained to you, extensive historical detail has already been provided in this threat . lets repeat a few of them for you and see if you get it this time. a few specific examples for you:

1) ..... during the normandy invasion for ex RRR was happening most of the time and this WAS THE SAME ON EVERY AIRFIELD IN NORMANDY..... , see ...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8899961403050041098&q=ww2
2) some more historical information from normandy for you (from D-Day 1944: "Air Power Over the Normandy Beaches and Beyond" by Richard P. Hallion, anAir Force Historian)

In the days before the closing of the Falaise gap, the 2 TAF averaged 1,200 sorties per day. The air war was particularly violent from August 15 through the 21st. Typhoons and Spitfires attacked the roads leading from the gap to the Seine, strafing columns of densely packed vehicles and men. Under repeated attack, some of the columns actually displayed white flags of surrender, but the RAF took "no notice" of this since Allied ground forces were not in the vicinity, and "to cease fire would merely have allowed the enemy to move unmolested to the Seine." Typhoons typically would destroy the vehicles at the head of a road column, then leisurely shoot up the rest of the vehicles with their rockets and cannon. When they finished, Spitfires would dive down to strafe the remains.

Because the Luftwaffe was absent over the battlefield, Broadhurst directed 2 TAF wings to operate their aircraft in pairs. Thus, a "two ship" of Spitfires or Typhoons could return to the gap after being refueled and rearmed without waiting for a larger formation to be ready to return. This maximized the number of support sorties that could be flown, and, indeed, pilots of one Canadian Spitfire wing averaged six sorties per day. Nothing that moved was immune from what one Typhoon pilot recollected as "the biggest shoot-up ever experienced by a rocket Typhoon pilot." Another recalled the flavor of attack operations:

3) you have also already been shown that for the busyest sector in the south of england during BoB it was also almost the norm for the sector that took most of the fighting
11 GROUP This Group was perhaps one of the busiest of all the groups as it had the task of not only being the closest to the enemy coast and seeing plenty of action, but had the unenviable job of protecting the capital city of London. The Group HQ was at Uxbridge, and Bentley Priory which was not too far away was the headquarters of Air Chief Marshall Hugh Dowding the Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command . Hornchurch, North Weald, Biggin Hill and Kenley were amongst the busiest of airfields during raids on London with pilots on many occasions coming in to refuel and rearm and then taking off straight away to join in on another dogfight. Air Vice-Marshall Keith Park was in charge of 11 Group.

etc....

you have been given similar examples of how it occured in other sectors and fronts. if you want to generalise anything, you have to say that it was a frequent occurence. you have even been given information to show that WITHOUT RRR THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WON BY THE RAF", it was that important. yet somehow after having been provided with all that information you are like a little kid still saying "look mummy, arnt i a kool full real pilot, but i cant take on new fuel or ammo because i dont like that" and "i am now telling everybody on the internet they should only play BoB lthe way i like it because i think whetever i say is always really important ". it aint history jack, dont call it simulation iof RRR is not available.

maybe you dont understand either that people in this thread are not trying to tell you how YOU should use BoB or il2, RRR will be a feature that you can switch off if you dont want it. similarly if you decide you want to fly permanently upside down in BoB or il2 you can do so to, whatever lights your fire, just dont try and tell people here it is normal because on this topic you dont seem to know your facts and are making a fool of yourself.


6 - Rearm and refuel of individual aircraft that would be sent back alone into battle is not only an exception, but such an exceptionnal case that making it a rule would completely ruin the reason you pretend you want to add RRR for, realism. jeez there you go again, spinning around like a little hamster in his cage, its gotta be painfull living inside that head of yours. then again, what you dont know wont hurt you eh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif let me share a little wisdom from the harry klump fact book with you.... fact 43: a fact is still a fact even when it is ignored.

grifter2u
10-06-2006, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by WOODY01:
I think the RRR thing would be a waste of time, would you honestly sit around in a plane shot up and out of fuel and ammo? I wouldnt, Id instantly go looking for the newist, best fueled, most armed son of a ***** on the field. (ie refly)

take that thought one step further. say you make it home to your airfield and your plane has been shot up etc.... like somebody sugested right at the start of this thread...

p1ngu666

maybe get out, and go to another aircraft **on that same airfield** and fly that.

say john* lands his spit, a bit of damage, swaps to a fully healthy hurri.

tom lands his blehiem, jumps out and rushes to the partly refueled spit, but fully armed- and takes off to help john*

more complex system, but u could have a "pool" of aircraft for each side, useable for the mission/dogfight.

say 20spits, 30hurri's, 20 blehiems, 10 misc aircraft

vs 30 109, 20 110, 40 he111, 30 do17, 10 ju88

see how the same RRR concept suddenly adds lots more immersion. similar situations occured in real life, partic in the hectic days of BoB. i read several reports of pilots landing with badly damaged aircraft, and taking of quickly again with whatever was available. if they landed at their home airfield, they would probably get a similar type aircraft, but it the one available might only just have been rearmed and only partially been refueled and repaired. remember that in the heated days of BoB the RAF had EVERYTHING that could fly and shoot commited to the defence of britain, there were no reserves. so this means anything that could fly and shoot would be in the air during daylight hours, and aircraft would not have had the time for perfect repairs. aircraft out of ammo and fuel would land for quick RRR and be sent straight back up again even if they had some minor repairs done or wernt perfectly repaired. and that is exactly what is documented in history over those weeks/months.

with a bit of thought we can implement these concepts, add realism, and add immersion.

the variation pindu gave might be usefull for online dogfight servers. various airfields can have different planes positioned on them. and only those planes are available to refly, but not all might have been fully refueld or rearmed. similarly fuel might not even be available at that airfield for a period of time because all the full dumps might recently have been destroyed by an enemy raid.

havnt people reading this thread already noticed that if you destroy flak guns at an enemy airfield, after a period of time they become operational again ? the exact same "time delay for repair after destruction" already exists for various objects in il2 currently. i find it kind of odd to respawn at a friendly airfield where every building and stationary aircraft has already been destroyed by enemy raids, as if my respawn is some kind of hyperspace fighter popping out of a cyberspace worm hole. how come the fake real crowd hasnt noticed that being odd ? damaged airfields need to be repaired at various rates (presuming supply roads are being kept open and convoys can get in), and new aircraft should only be supplied at specific rates, just like it was in real life. dont always expect a brand spanking latest model new fighter to be available each time you land at your home airfield, it never was like that in real life. this to needs to be an on/off option in BoB, and requires some thought on its better implementation.

some additional issues that could improve immersion, pilots ejecting over friendly territory should have some time delay factor before they can "refly". they might have to return to home base first, or even take a ride on a transport aircraft or road truck/car etc... (with the added risk of getting shot down by some loitering fighters etc) . i think there is lots of gameplay and realism factors like that that could be added/improved to increase the immersion. those are just some sugestions of how things can be improved, many other il2 users will have good constructive sugestions on that topic i think.

Hoarmurath
10-07-2006, 01:25 AM
Ah yes, indeed, that new "ignore this user" feature is amazing.

heywooood
10-07-2006, 10:16 AM
"Hoar"....lol. best name abreviation ever.

go ahead and hide my post now....lol

Wtornado_439th
10-07-2006, 02:24 PM
With all the insults flying and auguments going
on has anyone even asked a coder if it can at least be done?

Can they modify it or is it to close to the IL-2 coding?

Chivas
10-07-2006, 07:03 PM
It definitely won't be done with IL-2 unless some third party creates it. Highly doubtfull.

Will it be done in BOB. Maybe a 30% chance. Will it be done in some future combat flight sim. Definitely.

Would it be possible to implement in FB. Maybe...we already have a pilot running and jumping to the ground, So having a pilot walk from the aircraft to the dispersal hut or running to the aircraft in a scramble situation is intirely possible. Having some ground personnel in the background doing their thing during that short sequence is possible.

Personally I don't need a RRR option for FB. I'm hoping RRR will be an option developed overtime in the Storm of War series.

grifter2u
10-07-2006, 09:46 PM
a few additional examples of one of the contexts that RRR had in ww2 (aside from a quick splash and dash for ex for aircraft trying to make it home after a mission), RRR airbases construction near the frontline would be an immediate priority when the fronline shifted, so that fighters and ground attack planes didnt have to waste time returning to their home bases for rearming and refueling.... from CHAPTER 9 "THE AVIATION ENGINEERS IN AFRICA AND EUROPE".


During the first week after D Day aviation engineers continued to arrive as planned, increment after increment in successive shipments. Once ashore, the officers would identify their equipment and claim it in person, sometimes with considerable insistence. Then the detachments would seek the earlier arrivals of their units and join them, often after a good deal of confusion. Usually they quickly completed the emergency landing strips, the rearming and refueling strips, and the advanced landing grounds called for in the well-memorized plans. The jobs were finished expeditiously unless German fire kept the troops under cover for too long intervals. There were casualties among the aviation engineers, but far fewer than expected. There were vexations and difficulties. Yet things really went very well. Of all the sites selected before the landing, only one proved unsuitable.69 Men and machines were all the invasion commanders had expected them to be. As General Newman wrote, the first units ashore were admittedly not the worst of the aviation engineers, although even the worst were €œdamned good."70 The men themselves were keyed up by the challenge and well rewarded when they watched transports and fighters land on their runways almost the moment they were finished. It had not been that way in the impersonal construction of the mammoth airdromes in England. The spirits of the men were also quickened when they captured a few Germans and shot several snipers. Their work was judged €œsuperb€71 and €œmiraculous.€72

and an example of how these refueling and rearming were used by pilots that had to depart their flight in england, while trying to support their ground troops in normandy for ex... (note: once normal airbases would be close enough to the front line, usually normal home bases would have been used for RRR, like in the earlier examples i supplied for the 11th group covering the south of england during BoB). but RRR was considered so important as a "feature" in ww2, that engeneers had specific tasks to build them quickly as a priority when the front line shifted, so that the turn around period was at a minimum for frontline aircraft.

from "New Zealanders with the Royal Air Force" (Vol. II: CHAPTER 10 Normandy).....


Day after day the Spitfires continued to fly across the Channel from their base at Selsey, in Sussex, but after the first week they were able to use the emergency landing strips in Normandy for refuelling and re-arming in between patrols, thus saving the flight to and from England.

and from "History Of The 50th Fighter Group" ......


Invasion Support: Within hours of the invasion getting underway, a 9th Air Force Aviation Engineer Battalion had built a landing strip on Utah Beach, and by June 8 an emergency fighter strip had been laid. There were no fixed facilities at these sites, and for a time they were used only during daylight hours to refuel and rearm aircraft. At dusk the units flew back to England.

the importance of implementing RRR in il2-BoB is clearly illustrated with those historical facts, and it is important for most types of missions in il2/BoB to, like coops , dogfight servers and campaigns, but it would be used differently depending on the mission and server type . for ex a coop squadron departing from england might be tasked to attack a specific target in normandy after the landing (bridges for ex), and if they successfully accomplish this in their initial attack they would return to england and land to be debriefed without the need to refuel or rearm. after landing they then be tasked with their next mission and targets at that airfield (and in a dynamic campaign engine the same coop people would not have to exit the game and then restart with a completely reset battle field map, they would continue in the same "world" where their last action had a specific effect). but if that coop flight only partially distroyed their target, they might land once or several times in normandy at a forward RRR airbase to take on fresh munitions, just like it was done in real life. once mission was successfull, they would return to england (with or without all their inital pilots, some might have been killed or their aircraft to damaged to make it all the way home). similarly in a dogfight server, good pilots can stay near the frontline and keep fighting, with brief landing s to rearm etc, pilots that get killed would respawn at the main "mother base" further away from the action etc... (just some general thoughts, dont take my illustration to litteral at this point).

these forward RRR airbases were even so important that the RAF constructed and serviced them also in stationary frontline and built them as close as possible to the english channel during BoB, so that they could keep fully armed fighters in the air as much as possible, without wasting precious time flying back to the place where most action took place, or risking having full airfields with normal infrastructure being distroyed at the same time. note that those RAF english bases were "RRR specific airbases" ONLY, not fully functional airbases where squadrons would have been based !

from ..."The Air Campaign :Planning for Combat" by Col John A. Warden III, National Defense University Press Publication, 1988 ( Air War College Nonresident Studies.)


The Germans set out in the summer of 1940 to win air superiority over Britain. During the course of their two-month campaign, they continually changed their objectives, never identified a real center of gravity, and demonstrated a remarkable lack of patience and persistence. Of particular note was the short-lived thrust against Royal Air Force (RAF) bases. Starting in the second week of August, the Luftwaffe made RAF bases one of their primary objectives. Part of their effort was wasted, because it was directed against forward operating bases used only for quick refueling and rearming. These bases were relatively easy to repair. Another part of their base attack program, however, was directed against main bases, and it lasted until 6 September 1940.

if this concept is correctly implemented in il2's BoB, it will significantly add in immersion and realism, we just need to put some thought into how to implement it, to avoid any new features having some possible negative side effect on other aspects of general game play. but most problems can probably be avoided by having in as an on/off option.

it is completely beyond debate that RRR was used in real life during ww2, and that it was an EXTREMELY important part of how warfare was conducted on the western front (including during BoB) and pacific (i havnt researched the eastern front on this specific issue, but i presume it would be fairly similar in importance for the same reasons). it is why i sprayed back at Hoar when he was being so loud mouthed and agressive about him "not liking" it and him seeming to believe that was good enough of a reason not to implement it for all other il2-BoB users, while pretending he knew what he was talking about (... "having read many books".... duh ). it should be possible to disagree in forum discussions about an event without being unpleasant or rude, and then debate it with evidence based on historical facts, the purpose is to make il2 better after all.

LEXX_Luthor
10-09-2006, 05:57 PM
That was aussim Grifter! Thank you for taking the time to contribute here.

There is no debate at this webboard about how more options means more paying customers who keep interested in their purchased simulation over a longer time which attracts more customers and sustained interest in purchasing later upgrades. And, the more people playing mean more people to fill out all the different options. RR is just one of many options that can be offered as choices for customers.

ReArm/ReFuel was the subject of my first poast at this webboard, back on Ussian Tax Holiday 2003. I asked if IL-2 offered RR, and was politely told "no" with no hostility and no insults (this was long ago when the board was still a purely eastern front community). I went out that night and purchased the sim anyways, because the important thing was not RR but Eastern Front which had never been done before. This is my first WW2 combat flight sim and I found it through discussion on the Flaker 2.51 webboard (with no help from UBI marketing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif). I had done DOS Su-27 Flaker 1.0 and I used and enjoyed the RR feature of that old sim.

PBNA-Boosher
10-09-2006, 06:44 PM
Sorry guys, hate to break it to you... but ALL of you are being rude to each other.

You can go ahead and hide my post now.

Poker_4H
10-10-2006, 09:26 AM
I find it amusing that anyone would not want an "option" added to this sim.
Simply don't use the option if you so wish ... it really is that simple.

I don't fly cockpit off ... it's my choice, and I simply don't use that option.
is it wrong for someone to fly w/ cockpit off ? Nope .. just their choice, and not mine.

That this thread is 12 pages of argueing whether it's right or wrong, blah, blah, blah.
It just demonstrates the singular ability of individuals to be blinkered in their thinking.
I can see 12 pages of HOW to implement RRR, but 12 pages of bovine fecal matter is just ridiculous !

Bearcat99
10-10-2006, 11:54 AM
Bovine fecal matter...... I have to remember that.

LEXX_Luthor
10-10-2006, 09:40 PM
Poker::
I can see 12 pages of HOW to implement RRR, but 12 pages of bovine fecal matter is just ridiculous !
Its looking more like a fascinating Psycho study.

Noted on page 9 of nearmiss's Afterall This Is A Combat Flight Sim Game thread, what I call the Nearmiss Is Just A Gamer thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, we see some bitter Old Timer members of this community desperately try to give the impression that people who find "realistic(tm)" competition Sport flight models not sufficient by themselves to maintain their interest in combat flight sims are all fps arcade shooter gamers, but we also see members of this community showing their interest in the Total War series (no flight models) and the old EAW sim's immersive air warfare simulation features.



Below is taken from page 9 of the classic Afterall This Is A Combat Flight Sim Game, and the pages listed reference that thread.

Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Well Bearcat99 -- I was right, as we see in these new threads...


FB/PF community enjoys Total War series ~> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7591025584/p/1

FB/PF community misses old EAW Air War simulation features ~> http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6791091584



In this thread (Afterall This Is A Combat Flight Sim Game), many of this community tried to blame Oleg's market failure on lack of interest among "shooter gamers," but they refused to talk about serious people who are very interested in non-shooter games such as the Total War series, who are bored by simple Dogfight simulation, with or without "realistic accurate" flight/damage/weapon models, and bored by the lack of Air War simulation in FB/PF, and in modern combat flight sims in general...
------------------------------------------------

Some examples, from page 5...

ElAurens:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the majority of electronic gamers are not interested in history, or learning a difficult skill like flying, they simply want some quick, close quarter, automaic weapons play. So most developers design and market to that demographic.
Lexx::
Gamers are very interested in purchasing the Total War series, the Civilization series, and space strategery games, and their later upgrades. The publishers of these games know this and make profit without having to sell "shooter" games as you suggest they have to do.
------------------------------------------------

Stiglr (sudoku1941)::
The real question here is, "can we have a better all around combat flight sim?" not "can we be the most popular and lucrative niche, outselling <span class="ev_code_yellow">Nintendo and Madden's NFL</span>". Nobody's even going there. And for good reason: that's NEVER going to happen.
Lexx::
Also not trying to "outsell" Nintendo and MaddenNFL are the creators of the Total War series, the Civilization series, space strategery games, and the Silent Hunter series.
------------------------------------------------

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Ugly_Kid::
Now go fish for <span class="ev_code_yellow">the gamers folk and easy to start people</span> who just want to fire it up and go a-shooting and you loose the hardcore folks.
Lexx::
Kid, your "gamer folk" statement has no meaning in a webboard discussion about customers who purchase and sustain interest in non-shooter game PC software such as the Total War series, the Civilization series, the Forgotten Battles/Pacific Fighters series, space strategery games (very hardcore science fiction fans), and the Silent Hunter series.

------------------------------------------------

We see now why we can't talk about serious, military and history oriented PC gamers who are bored with combat flight sims' focus on simple Dogfight shooting -- we are among these people, and we would have to talk about ourselves; always a difficult thing. They are us. We are these people playing Total War and missing Air War simulation features from EAW.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

grifter2u
11-02-2006, 12:02 AM
another example of how many flights in ww2 were not always perfectly organised events, and could often involve the actions of a single pilot acting on his own, from an interview with hartmann (but maybe some people like hoar think they still know better how things really hapened in ww2)
from "The Final Interview with Erich Hartmann"

Q: When did you score your first kill?
A: That was a day I will never forget, 5 November 1942, a Shturmovik IL-2,
which was the toughest aircraft to bring down because of the heavy armor
plate. You had to shoot out the oil cooler underneath, otherwise it would not
go down. That was also the day of my second forced landing since I had flown
into the debris of my kill. I learned two things that day; get in close and shoot
and break away immediately after scoring the kill. The next kill came in
February the following year. This was when Krupinski came to Taman and
was my new squadron leader.

Q: Walter told me about the day he arrived, and his episode with the two fighters.
What do you remember?
A: He came in, introduced himself, demanded a plane, went up, was shot down,
and brought back by car. He then took another, scored two kills and returned,
then wanted dinner. The whole event was treated as casually as a card game.

they must have been stationed close to the front lines at the time obviously, but i have read many similar stories from real ww2 pilots before, both on the allied and german sides.

LEXX_Luthor
11-02-2006, 12:57 AM
That's not Rearm/Refuel, but unit Leader getting a freebie fresh plane, which could be similar to the idea of spare aircraft pool. Possibly, the Leader bumped another lesser pilot out of the plane ready to fly, which is not exactly the same idea as spare aircraft pool.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A...in FB Gold...and...Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB, you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option." ~Stiglr
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"109Z flew briefly, after being hit by a bomb. Go-229 also saw combat, when the factory was overrun." ~pingu666
:
"Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

grifter2u
11-02-2006, 01:12 AM
correct, its an example of a pilot taking whatever plane was availble to him.

i this case it was a squadron commander doing the choosing, so he could bump a lower officer if needed. but at that moment it sounds like a number of planes were at the base, and he chose whatever one he thought best (one of those being fueled, armed and ready to scramble at short notice i presume).

i gave the illustration mainly to again state that not all flights were done in brand new perfectly serviced planes in fully organised squadron flying in a perfectly organised formation to their targets, and at times pilots just grabbed whatever plane they could (or were allowed to take).

for BoB we really need a way to include some type of "simulation" of the plane repair time issue, and the number and type of total planes available at a base at any one time, and their rate of resuply for fresh planes arriving at that base.

Haigotron
11-02-2006, 09:22 AM
wow 12 pages...i did not see that coming<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/haigotron/il2banner.png
The End is Nigh: The World will END in two weeks...be sure!

Bearcat99
11-06-2006, 09:03 AM
grifter.. great posts man....
The nice thing about this sim is that with all of it's options people can acxtually choose to fly as they see fit. While I dont mind flying in fully immersive settings... to me it is more fun to have some kind of visual aid.. like tight icons.. because it is hard for me to see sometimes.... but it is great that I can set up a server coop or DF with all the options I prefer.. and someone will join it.... I dont have to beat my chest and insist that anyone fly the way I think is best.... those who want to will choose to do so.. those who dont wont.

IMO more options are always better than less.

It is amazing, the amount of negativity in this thread. So much bluster. I mean... if you disagree with an idea then fine say so and be done with it... but this long back and forth protracted negative banter.. basically saying the same thing over and over is just ..... incredible. To all those who actually contributed ideas to this thread..... thanks.... to those who injected nothing but negativity... just for the sake of hearing themselves speak... because thats all it was. No rhyme or reason to thier points other than... I dont like it so it bites. Arguing just for the same of arguing..... says a lot about people and thier personalities.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://star.walagata.com/w/bearcat/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE> 332nd V.F.G. (http://www.geocities.com/bearcat99th/) [/list]
<span class="ev_code_GREEN">It is easier to train a boy than to repair a man.</span>
Sturmovik Essentials (http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | Magnum PC.Com (http://www.magnum-pc.com/) | Joint Operations (http://www.joint-ops.com/joil2fb/default.asp)

Stackhouse25th
01-21-2007, 12:25 PM
i see its backup/unlocked etc. keep it clean and if you have to just state ur opinion.

grifter2u
02-11-2007, 07:02 PM
hi stackhouse,

that was an interesting thread you started.

when we couldnt discuss it here anymore, i started an additional thread to continue discussing the same topic.

i'll place the thread link to it here, so all the information about it is in one place

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3191079015/p/1

i really hope Oleg and Co are are paying attention to this issue !

general_kalle
02-11-2007, 11:46 PM
if you cant agree then do a compromise.

make it a relism switch just like external views.

turn on RRR.
turn of RRR.

its that easy.

Fork-N-spoon
02-12-2007, 03:23 AM
If you want less people to play with, press for more "realism." While this feature may sound great to those fanatical players, many of us loathe any idea that would make us wait even longer. It sounds like some want a flight simulator rather than an air combat game. So be it, but remember one thing, it won't be popular and the option to turn off, "refuel, rearm, and repair" would be advisable so that those that hate it would also have a game to play.

Quite frankly, I'm a bit sick of the realism squad. I've watched dozens of people stop playing this game due to patches that made the game harder and less enjoyable. I finally quit playing because all of my virtual friends quit. Keep pressing the issue until only a few of you are left to play.

grifter2u
02-12-2007, 06:13 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
If you want less people to play with, press for more "realism." While this feature may sound great to those fanatical players, many of us loathe any idea that would make us wait even longer. It sounds like some want a flight simulator rather than an air combat game. So be it, but remember one thing, it won't be popular and the option to turn off, "refuel, rearm, and repair" would be advisable so that those that hate it would also have a game to play.

Quite frankly, I'm a bit sick of the realism squad. I've watched dozens of people stop playing this game due to patches that made the game harder and less enjoyable. I finally quit playing because all of my virtual friends quit. Keep pressing the issue until only a few of you are left to play.

they are called "options' so people like you could switch them off.

and what makes you think this sim should only be designed according to what you personally like anyway ? what is good for the goose is good for the gander ! that is why you have a 2 page set of options to choose from already http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif you can go from one realism extreme in those to a full arcade game, choose what you like with your friends. and if you cant find a server like that to your liking online, start your own server with your prefered settings. the main reason the full real type servers are the most popular, is because that is what most regular online users prefer, and it is what this program is aimed at providing.

if you had read through the thread you should have noticed that RRR was so important in the real BoB, that it would have been lost without it. if this game is marketed as a simulation of WW2 pilot experiences, then it should include the main aspects that were relevant to real ww2 pilots during that time.

Stackhouse25th
02-12-2007, 08:38 AM
u cant help those that dont want to be helped.

Stackhouse25th
02-12-2007, 07:14 PM
I would be ok with rearm refuel if it was implemented like this.

Allow a certain amount of weapons surplus at each airbase. A certain amount of crewman. So a supply type system. Rearm and refuel would be the same as hitting refly except you wouldnt, you would just land. Any repair would require you to take another aircraft and then fly one that is available (if this option is set).

Make this option on or off. Allow supply lines to be established and how well the lines are working so the airbase can receive lots or little supply.

People will be more interested in RTB'ing than dying. This will allow for a somewhat more realistic simulation without excessive code being introduced.

BadA1m
02-12-2007, 09:19 PM
I sure hope some of you guy's aren't military people, because you certainly haven't learned how to pick your battles. I'm sure RRR is a lovely hill but just what is the strategic value? It certainly doesn't have much of a view, it doesn't control any choke points, it's just a hill...an insignifigant freakin' pile of dirt and while one side digs in and the other charges their positions not a damn thing gets done, nothing meaningful happens, you can't even tell the difference between the sides after awhile. It really is a shame but I guess it's just human nature. I just wish it didn't have the potential to make everyone here look like fools, especially to the new guys and casual observers who might be looking into this IL2 thing.

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2007, 09:42 PM
BadArm::
I'm sure RRR is a lovely hill but just what is the strategic value? It certainly doesn't have much of a view,
The strategic value is the paying customers and combat flight sim community that wants an option to ReFuel and ReArm and the extra gameplay it offers to those who desire it.

I sure hope you are not a business person. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Alloy007P
02-15-2007, 10:58 PM
Im all for the the three Rs Reduse Recycle Reuse!

Chivas
02-16-2007, 01:52 AM
Why is it so hard to understand that
RRR would be an OPTION. Just like anyone of a multitude of other options in the game... cockpit on/off...Manual/Auto Engine Management...Icons off/on...External view off/on...Realistic Gunnery off/on...Takeoff and Landing off/on etc.

You can make this game as easy/hard as you want it. To say this game has gotten to hard is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

stormende
02-16-2007, 09:46 PM
I pass on RRR but surely will like to see planes scrambling to intercept a ride as they fly by or maybe those scouts re-directing flights if they detect an incoming ride early or at least the scouts sending the info to the control tower so you have the option to ask them to direct you to the intruders.

That would be realistic...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

jet_nut
02-20-2007, 02:56 AM
A sim called Aces High 2 has A rearm area to taxi into on the Airfiwelds what's more, it is a free and realistic sim!

AVGWarhawk
02-23-2007, 01:47 PM
I think there should be RRR. Specifically in a campaign game. Maybe sit for 3 minutes. But then again, hitting refly is like a RRR. Only deal with that is a spawn lag. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif I like how CFS2 handled it. But thats just me.

Choctaw111
02-24-2007, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by jet_nut:
A sim called Aces High 2 has A rearm area to taxi into on the Airfiwelds what's more, it is a free and realistic sim!

I think it is fair to say that there are some elements that other combat flight sims do better than Il2 but to say that they are more realistic as a whole than Il2 is pushing it a bit far. Il2 does more things better than any other sim.

MAILMAN------
04-14-2007, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
That would be an excellent feature.... of course not in real time which would be ridiculous..... and of course you couldnt have little guys come running out.... but if you caould actually land... go to a designated area... and depending on the level set in config... or how may times you have already done it... go back up.... It would be good.. but i dont think it will be in this sim... plus.. truth be told.. I really wouldnt want that feature unless some form of fatigue was modelled too.. say after you go up 3 or 4 times.. depending on how may times you blacked out in the previous sorties... they would start to get longer....

Also I think there should be some kind of incentive to NOT just hit refly.. say an extra 200 points for each time you could sucessfully make it back and RRR.... and of course if you get shot down eventually you loose all that except whatever take down points you accumulated.

This feature is currently modeled in the Aces High online game where you taxied to a designated part of the tarmac and after a few minutes you are rearmed and refueled and repaired to your previous start of flight condition. This works quite well. The incentive is that targets are worth more points as the number you destroy goes up during the mission or continued mission after rearming.

grifter2u
04-14-2007, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
I think there should be RRR. Specifically in a campaign game. Maybe sit for 3 minutes. But then again, hitting refly is like a RRR.

if you implement RRR it will often function differently from simple instant refly, once you add other minor associated changes that increase realism.

for ex both sides in the war did not have an unlimited amount of brand new factory fresh replacement aircraft always instantly available at all airfields (which is what instant refly creates)

if in il2 you provide each active airfield with a limited number of specific plane models only (which is already done on most online servers), then you can have those airfields resupplied with petrol, planes, repair parts, and new pilots at a specific rate. if more is being destroyed than can be repaired or resupplied, then less should become available at that location.

when now every plane counts in order to keep your frontline airfields active and effective, you then HAVE to start nursing your planes home and protecting these airfield to maintain those airfield as active. if all planes on that frontline airfield are distroyed, and so is the fuel store and buildings then several things can start to happen:
- your own planes from other bases now take much longer to get to the frontline action, or to mission objectives, because they have to fly a greater distance.
- the enemy planes can start to dominate that sector.
- the frontline could now even move forward/back on the server map.

right now distroying stationary planes or infrastructure on enemy airfields has no effect on the game at all, and unlimited brand new aircraft of all types keep respawning constantly as if materializing out of a wormhole. you can have a massive air raid destroying everything on an airfield, and 2 sec later 5 people resawn in brand new aircraft as if nothing had happened.

with RRR minor repairs on your aicraft could be done while refueling and rearming at various airbases (as was done in real life), but if your aircraft was more significantly damaged the objective should really be to try and nurse it home and then leave it at an airfield so it can be repaired and reused at some later point. at whatever airfield you then land at you could choose a plane model that is available at that base.

after a longer repair time your original aircraft will then again list as "available" for other pilots landing there in the future. the time it takes to repair that aircraft would then also make it vulnerable to complete destruction on the ground by enemy raids.

the result is that airfields will only be active if they have intact fuel supply, and have flyable planes. and that is exactly what happened in the real battle of Brittan, the initial german raids on airfields were very effective in gradually making them less and less operational, and allied pilots in the latter phase of BoB often had to fly one mission after the other during daylight hours, only landing for refueling and rearming and having some minor quick repairs done. if a plane needed more time for repairs, that means less planes were available at that base.

the germans then switched their attacks to civilian targets, like london etc, and the allied coastal bases had time to breathe a bit and recover in their operational status.

we are simply asking for RRR to be implemented as an OPTION, people who dont like to use it can simply switch it off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif