[DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

User avatar
Dragon_Mech
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:18 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-14, F-15D&E, SR-71, King Air 200, B737
Location: Mansfield, Mo. USA
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 127 times

[DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Dragon_Mech » Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:35 am

Hello everyone.

I have only been a member for about 2 years now. but in that time i have flown some aircraft from several squadrons , both past and present, that seem to be purposefully made to be so unbelievably powerful and/or agile, that they give their respective squads an unfair advantage.
i could refer to these squads by name but i would like to refrain from starting any non-productive arguments.

it is my strongest belief, that we as a community need to come up with some resonable regulations for combat aircraft that are used in our combat squadrons. regulations that limit what types of modifications that squads can make to the models and DAT files of their aircraft. we need to make sure that each squadron can still use "Unique" aircraft without having so called "cheat planes".

i urge all of our members, not just the military sub-community, to participate in this discussion. because this affects the entire community.
Owner, Dragonic Machine Industries
Image

KM6BZH
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 314
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:59 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mitsubishi Zero
Location: Cupertino, CA
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 153 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by KM6BZH » Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:39 am

I agree, but I don't think most servers allow cheat planes.

User avatar
Midnight Rambler
Senior Veteran
Senior Veteran
Posts: 2110
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:08 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-16
Location: Australia
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 358 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Midnight Rambler » Fri Oct 07, 2016 5:40 am

Haha sorry i made another topic, I'll post it here and het rid of the other:

So there have been some recent discussions in mChat regarding squadron .dats and their relative fairness.

Historically the stock F-16 has been the benchmark for A2A engagements, however the trend seems to be changing with squadrons opting for more performance enhanced models for combat.

I have no problem with this, times change and people are obviously interested in different forms of combat now. I think rather than people having small squables and having their feelings hurt, the major squads should have a frank and open discussion.

For those not familiar with this discussion, its based on a couple of factors. Essentially squads want their own fleet and want to have diverse dats to fit the fleet. The base of stock F-16 allowed squads to base their dats off of a mutual example and allowed relatively fair dogfighting to occur. It seems that the F-16 is no longer favoured, with the Grun/121 squadron basing their aircraft off HQPGAC dats, which have vastly different flight dynamics.

Due to the 171st current inactivity, I'm happy to act as moderator between the two major sqauds of 2016: Grun/121 and VFA-49.

So lets hear it, what do you want to discuss? Anyone with an opinion is welcome to contribute but please be courteous and respectful to each other.
Image

User avatar
Nodoka Hanamura
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:01 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Su-24, Mig-29, Su-27, F-18, F-15, ADF-01, Icon A5
Has thanked: 512 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Nodoka Hanamura » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:03 am

I think what would be best to do would to is to turn this discussion into a Community Working Group where those not just in MilAv but the community at large, both in YSFHQ and those from other communities can speak their mind and provide research, concepts and ideas as to what seems best for all parties.

"YSFHQ Working Group on Military Aviation Standards" sounds good, but naming a reason for the season aside, I want to stress that GrunSol welcomes diversity of aircraft and capabilities, but even within such bounds there must be limitations, lest we enter a never ending-phallic object measuring contest that makes all parties involved look like blaring donkeys and turn away new users who want to form their own squadrons and eventually compete with the big dogs.

I do agree Grun has based our aircraft off HQPGAC dats, however, this was inherent due to the fact that this is what we were given to play with at the start. Mind the public, GrunSolutions' current fleet consists of mostly HQPGAC and GAC aircraft that were donated to us by Vic Viper of VFA-49, hence why on our Wiki page It says that VFA-49 is our ally by grounds of Ex Gratia.

That aside, I welcome CVW-171 personnel acting as mediators betwixt VFA-49 and GrunSol, hence they really have nothing to gain nor lose from this discussion other than civility betwixt all parties.

My, and my personnel's main concerns as of late are with aircraft such as the VFA-49's AC-130 and Ikaros. Now, in the 49th's defense regarding the AC-130, Vic has said they are working on balancing it out (if I recall correctly, I believe it was in a chat on the 49th server from god knows when, gonna need go dig it out.), and even then, in it's current form, the AC-130 can be sniped out of the sky by a decent sharpshooter, due to the AC-130's range and accuracy at range being subpar for countering such tactics.

As for the Ikaros, the Ikaros seems to have a unrealistic flight model, if my recollections of how it flew are correct. (Mind you, I have **** long term memory.) I can recall the thing could easily do turn and burn hit and run attacks on aircraft. This is all fine and belldandy, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't seem fair. But to counter this "unfairness", Aircraft such as the controversial MiG-41B that MR experienced were designed to match it's speed.

However, like I said before, we must have limitations to our aircraft, lest GrunSolutions PMC and VFA-49 enter a never-ending phallic object measuring contest. Aircraft like the Ikaros and MiG-41B should be considered as near the precipice of the point where aircraft leave the realm of acceptability and enter cheatplane territory.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
Image
Yes, GrunSol is still around, Yes, I'm Still alive. Any other Questions?

User avatar
Neocon
First Class Membership
First Class Membership
Posts: 3728
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:01 am
Favorite Aircraft: Baron 58
Location: Tennessee
OS: Win Vista
Has thanked: 1519 times
Been thanked: 1645 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Neocon » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:12 am

If you need an outsider in a military YS discussion, I think I qualify. :lol:

Suggestion 1: Before a combat event starts, both sides should set out what kinds of aircraft and weapons should be used. Just say, "Let's used futuristic fighters with guns only," or "Let's fly F-16s with stock dats."

Suggestion 2: All squads should have an assortment of aircraft .dats so that you can switch them up. It can be as simple as having, for example, an F-16 with a GAC-style .dat and the same paint with a stock .dat, or you can give them some distinguishing markings. Either way, the name would have to be different for YSF to distinguish between them.

Suggestion 3: For over-powered future fighters, go wild and let your .dat-building skills be the limit. At the same time, don't complain when your .dat isn't as powerful as the other guy's. Make your .dat better and try again later.

User avatar
Dragon_Mech
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 571
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:18 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-14, F-15D&E, SR-71, King Air 200, B737
Location: Mansfield, Mo. USA
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 127 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Dragon_Mech » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:25 am

well. i personally don't have any issue with certian modifications like converting civil aircraft to military models. or adding weapons to an aircraft that normally wouldn't carry them( as seen with a couple of my F-15E projects).
my biggest issue is when squads push the performance of any of their aircraft so far past anything that could be considered ethical, that it is almost impossible to have a fair fight without having to resort to the same tatics.

regarding patricks suggestion of having multiple dat files for one model:

i feel that this would be impractical to employ. this would make squad packs into massive packs that would deture alot of people from downloading the pack. i'm sure that there are a few more reasons why this idea wouldn't work, but this is all i can think of at this time.
Owner, Dragonic Machine Industries
Image

User avatar
Neocon
First Class Membership
First Class Membership
Posts: 3728
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:01 am
Favorite Aircraft: Baron 58
Location: Tennessee
OS: Win Vista
Has thanked: 1519 times
Been thanked: 1645 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Neocon » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:43 am

As far as file size goes, if an aircraft model is used with two .dat files, only one copy of the .dnm, cl, and cpt files are needed and .dat files are generally pretty small. Only the number of aircraft listed would increase.

I suggested having both GAC- and stock-based .dats because those two seem to be available for most conventional aircraft. The other option, and this is something that could be settled in this very topic if so desired, is to decide upon identical .dats for aircraft used in every squad. For example, everybody just agree to use the stock .dat for the F-16 and the GAC .dat for the A-10. Or any other combination. Making that kind of decision is why we're here. :)


Suggestion 4: Fly the other squad's planes from time to time to see what they can do. If you know what they are capable of doing, you are in a better position to strike back from the start because you won't be surprised.

Suggestion 5: Read the other squad's .dat files. I mean, you have them right there on your computer. Open them up and see what's inside.

User avatar
Midnight Rambler
Senior Veteran
Senior Veteran
Posts: 2110
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:08 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-16
Location: Australia
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 358 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Midnight Rambler » Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:32 am

Paging VFA-49
VicViper wrote:page
VNAF ONE wrote:page
OfficerFlake wrote:page
NightRaven wrote:page
:lol:
Image

User avatar
Flake
Staff
Staff
Posts: 4244
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:47 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Honda CBR1000RR (2004).
Location: Australia
OS: Windows 10 (x64)
Has thanked: 803 times
Been thanked: 1157 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Flake » Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:39 am

Rambler sir good evening sir came to get my attention sir would you like that sir?

YSFan
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:04 am
Favorite Aircraft: Airbus A380
OS: Windows 7
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by YSFan » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:19 am

Could I suggest that Decaf's F-20s be used as a standard for fairness?

User avatar
NightRaven
Staff
Staff
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:00 am
Favorite Aircraft: soviet and (nazi) german aircraft
Location: singapore
OS: windoze 10 64-bit
Has thanked: 524 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by NightRaven » Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:28 am

Nodoka Hanamura wrote:As for the Ikaros, the Ikaros seems to have a unrealistic flight model, if my recollections of how it flew are correct. (Mind you, I have **** long term memory.) I can recall the thing could easily do turn and burn hit and run attacks on aircraft. This is all fine and belldandy, don't get me wrong. But it doesn't seem fair. But to counter this "unfairness", Aircraft such as the controversial MiG-41B that MR experienced were designed to match it's speed.
hahahaha

look at your Su-37s first. 3:1 thrust to weight ratio is never a good idea for a "balanced" aircraft. in fact, the main reason why the Ikaros was drafted into service was because of the Su-37. look at your aircraft first before calling others out on it.

also, some members of your squad have a tendency to switch to non squadron ace combat aircraft, which tend to have more performance, when they realise they are getting shot down more often than they'd like. might want to look into that.

as for standards, I never liked the stock F-16 dogfights. sure, they give a fairly clear indicator of who was better at turning, but for me with my fairly high ping it never really worked out well. playing war thunder is so much more fun because it doesn't have such a base model for dogfights; in fact, the fact that most fights take place with different aircraft is exactly the reason why they're more fun: the experience from flying the aircraft teaches you tactics and leveraging on the aircraft's strengths to ensure victory. in ys it's just seeing who turns at the right moment and who is able to turn more tightly, or who knows the fuel loadout or flap configuration just to squeeze that little bit more of turn. granted, ys does not simulate blackouts or airframes falling apart at high Gs (thus dampening the effect of tactics), but in my opinion dogfights would be a lot more fun if it were more than mere turnfighting. it would also be good if aircraft dats were also not always tuned to turning; instead having their own strengths and weaknesses.

attempting to come up with an absolute standard would also be extremely difficult. unless you have first hand experience in flying the aircraft or knowing someone who does (as in the case of flashheart's typhoons), trying to come up with realistic performance could be futile. thus, it is best to leave it up to the modder, and eventually the community to decide if the performance is fair or not.

also ysfan, that probably won't cut it.
Image

User avatar
Vic Viper
Staff
Staff
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:01 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-22A Raptor
Location: -9° 59' 6.90", -138° 49' 35.51
OS: Fail10PremiumEdition
Has thanked: 283 times
Been thanked: 178 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vic Viper » Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:03 am

Yes, I really don't understand how there could be complaints about the Ikaros. It's a carbon copy of your SU-37! They only thing it has going for it is a little stealth (which matters not in Aim9x range) and the ability to carry fuel tanks. I'll upload screens side by side of the dats to prove it (shortly)

AS FOR THE ac-130, yes, it has auto gunners. It's also extremely slow and can be shot down from BVR. It has only one air-air purpose, influencing where the engagement takes place. In fact it would be more OP to use a stock WWII bomber because they usually can't be radar locked and have twice has many gunners.

As I continue to figure out what the hell happened last night while I slept, I'll update this response.

As for the accusation of the 49th using cheat planes, no, we do not. We do like to see what can be accomplished with dat programming and new ys features (lasers for guns, reasonable amount of stealth, unique aircraft with specific roles like BVR combat, and many more cool things) As Night Raven stated, the Ikaros was our only new fighter we had to field recently, the rest of the pack was released last year with no complaints. We adopted the 171st standard for a reason, and to my knowledge they were satisfied with the results. We even went a few rounds of combat against them with both sides having fun.

If that standard is to change in the future, than I'm all for it. Let's talk about that. I know my DIvision Officer (NightRaven) has some good ideas on it.



(1st Edit)
Hmm...I see Nokoda that you agree about sharpshooting the AC-130 out of the sky, this seems more and more a vfa-121 internal matter. (Guys, try to make up please, I like Swift)
Image
VFA-49 FORUM

"If you don't know who I am...then maybe your best course would be to tread lightly."

User avatar
Swift
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:51 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mig-21
Location: The Mün
OS: Windows 10 Home
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 289 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Swift » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:24 pm

NightRaven wrote: hahahaha
I see no joke here.
NightRaven wrote: also, some members of your squad have a tendency to switch to non squadron ace combat aircraft, which tend to have more performance, when they realise they are getting shot down more often than they'd like. might want to look into that.
the object of this isn't to point fingers, we're trying to figure out common aircraft regulations, not blame users. might want to look into that.
NightRaven wrote: look at your Su-37s first. 3:1 thrust to weight ratio is never a good idea for a "balanced" aircraft. in fact, the main reason why the Ikaros was drafted into service was because of the Su-37. look at your aircraft first before calling others out on it.
replay data from ops conducted on the 49th show that the ikaros has higher performance than even the firefly, able to dogfight against AI at supersonic speeds. our Su-37 has been in service long before the ikaros existed. the capabilities of the two side by side show that the ikaors will win 8/10 times in one on one combat.
Image

User avatar
Vic Viper
Staff
Staff
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:01 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-22A Raptor
Location: -9° 59' 6.90", -138° 49' 35.51
OS: Fail10PremiumEdition
Has thanked: 283 times
Been thanked: 178 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vic Viper » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:37 pm

I'm sorry Swift, but no. They fly the same. I literally copied your SU-37 dat and overwrote DoE's dat.

Dat, no changes since creation have been made (scout's honor)

Open up your SU-37 dat and compare them. In fact, since your 37 has a gunpower of 3, we opted for a gun power of 2, and 0.04 firing rate (instead of default 0.02) since the model has two cannons instead of one. (and 500 less ammo)

(hint: open in a new tab)
Image
Image



Only differences are we have 10 more flares, a 0.05 fuel efficiency advantage, we can carry fuel tanks, and we have a 0.25 stealth profile.

None of this makes a difference in close range air to air combat. I've never thought using replays was a good idea, as they tend to be glitchy, especially if they're large files recorded from servers.
Last edited by Vic Viper on Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:51 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Image
VFA-49 FORUM

"If you don't know who I am...then maybe your best course would be to tread lightly."

User avatar
Swift
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:51 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mig-21
Location: The Mün
OS: Windows 10 Home
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 289 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Swift » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:41 pm

Then why don't we fly with G-limiters (blackouts) turned on? wouldn't that solve a good chunk of the problems here?

i say this bc i made the firefly to counter the ikaros, the ikaros was made to counter the su-37, eventually the 49th will deploy a plane to counter the firefly, so on and so forth until we wind up building planes just to counter their respective opponents, this was something nikki mentioned last night.
Image

User avatar
Vic Viper
Staff
Staff
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:01 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-22A Raptor
Location: -9° 59' 6.90", -138° 49' 35.51
OS: Fail10PremiumEdition
Has thanked: 283 times
Been thanked: 178 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vic Viper » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:55 pm

If YS would also hold the aircraft back when turning high G's (like in real life) that would be amazing. But just having the screen black out and still having full control has always been considered rather irksome since it began in 2000.

One more thing for the wishlist I suppose.
Image
VFA-49 FORUM

"If you don't know who I am...then maybe your best course would be to tread lightly."

User avatar
Swift
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:51 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mig-21
Location: The Mün
OS: Windows 10 Home
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 289 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Swift » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:58 pm

but it is better then nothing in this case, i know i wouldn't keep pulling 20-30g's in a dogfight if i can't see. at first the firefly was only made to handle about 8-9g's bc i thought it was more realistic, obviously that changed :lol:
Image

User avatar
Midnight Rambler
Senior Veteran
Senior Veteran
Posts: 2110
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:08 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-16
Location: Australia
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 258 times
Been thanked: 358 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Midnight Rambler » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:06 pm

Swift wrote:
NightRaven wrote: look at your Su-37s first. 3:1 thrust to weight ratio is never a good idea for a "balanced" aircraft. in fact, the main reason why the Ikaros was drafted into service was because of the Su-37. look at your aircraft first before calling others out on it.
replay data from ops conducted on the 49th show that the ikaros has higher performance than even the firefly, able to dogfight against AI at supersonic speeds. our Su-37 has been in service long before the ikaros existed. the capabilities of the two side by side show that the ikaors will win 8/10 times in one on one combat.
Does thst take into account pilot skill? Not to say Grun aren't good, but the 49th have some excellent pilots. To me, Grun are good in their own aircraft as a whole, but I've seen a real reluctance to fight me in any aircraft that I have access too.

Seems like this was all a misunderstanding after all. Speaking of which, i have an idea to help combat a little for now.
Image

User avatar
Nodoka Hanamura
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 921
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:01 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Su-24, Mig-29, Su-27, F-18, F-15, ADF-01, Icon A5
Has thanked: 512 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Nodoka Hanamura » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:08 pm

Swift wrote:Then why don't we fly with G-limiters (blackouts) turned on? wouldn't that solve a good chunk of the problems here?

i say this bc i made the firefly to counter the ikaros, the ikaros was made to counter the su-37, eventually the 49th will deploy a plane to counter the firefly, so on and so forth until we wind up building planes just to counter their respective opponents, this was something nikki mentioned last night.
The reason being that G-forces are coded very unrealistically, mainly on the overbearing side.
Vic Viper wrote:I'm sorry Swift, but no. They fly the same. I literally copied your SU-37 dat and overwrote DoE's dat.

Dat, no changes since creation have been made (scout's honor)

Open up your SU-37 dat and compare them. In fact, since your 37 has a gunpower of 3, we opted for a gun power of 2, and 0.04 firing rate (instead of default 0.02) since the model has two cannons instead of one. (and 500 less ammo)

(hint: open in a new tab)
Image
Image



Only differences are we have 10 more flares, a 0.05 fuel efficiency advantage, we can carry fuel tanks, and we have a 0.25 stealth profile.

None of this makes a difference in close range air to air combat. I've never thought using replays was a good idea, as they tend to be glitchy, especially if they're large files recorded from servers.
This is genuinely interesting as I didn't know that our Su-37 had this capability. As far as I can recall, I don't think we made any post-GAC modifications to the Su-37. I do appreciate you bringing this up, Vic.
NightRaven wrote:as for standards, I never liked the stock F-16 dogfights. sure, they give a fairly clear indicator of who was better at turning, but for me with my fairly high ping it never really worked out well. playing war thunder is so much more fun because it doesn't have such a base model for dogfights; in fact, the fact that most fights take place with different aircraft is exactly the reason why they're more fun: the experience from flying the aircraft teaches you tactics and leveraging on the aircraft's strengths to ensure victory. in ys it's just seeing who turns at the right moment and who is able to turn more tightly, or who knows the fuel loadout or flap configuration just to squeeze that little bit more of turn. granted, ys does not simulate blackouts or airframes falling apart at high Gs (thus dampening the effect of tactics), but in my opinion dogfights would be a lot more fun if it were more than mere turnfighting. it would also be good if aircraft dats were also not always tuned to turning; instead having their own strengths and weaknesses.
I have to second NR's mentality. I never truly liked the Stock F-16 dogfights, and the War Thunder comparison is perfect.
Vic Viper wrote: Hmm...I see Nokoda that you agree about sharpshooting the AC-130 out of the sky, this seems more and more a vfa-121 internal matter. (Guys, try to make up please, I like Swift)
We've solved our issues, But 121 is undergoing some internal changes.
Midnight Rambler wrote:
Swift wrote:
NightRaven wrote: look at your Su-37s first. 3:1 thrust to weight ratio is never a good idea for a "balanced" aircraft. in fact, the main reason why the Ikaros was drafted into service was because of the Su-37. look at your aircraft first before calling others out on it.
replay data from ops conducted on the 49th show that the ikaros has higher performance than even the firefly, able to dogfight against AI at supersonic speeds. our Su-37 has been in service long before the ikaros existed. the capabilities of the two side by side show that the ikaors will win 8/10 times in one on one combat.
Does thst take into account pilot skill? Not to say Grun aren't good, but the 49th have some excellent pilots. To me, Grun are good in their own aircraft as a whole, but I've seen a real reluctance to fight me in any aircraft that I have access too.

Seems like this was all a misunderstanding after all. Speaking of which, i have an idea to help combat a little for now.
Whatever it may be, I am all ears.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
Image
Yes, GrunSol is still around, Yes, I'm Still alive. Any other Questions?

User avatar
Swift
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:51 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mig-21
Location: The Mün
OS: Windows 10 Home
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 289 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Swift » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:11 pm

stupid idea, just throwing it out. why doesn't the 49th set up a plane that has a dat that can't hand anything above say...13g's, shoot it to me and i'll slap it on a firefly (modified obviously for the weapons and fuel only) and we'll take them one on one and see how it works
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest