[DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

User avatar
Nodoka Hanamura
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 923
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: 513 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Nodoka Hanamura » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:13 pm

Swift wrote: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
Seconded. I want to remind all parties that there are misunderstandings here. I don't want any unnecessary Hostility.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
Image

NightRaven
Senior Veteran
Senior Veteran
Posts: 1843
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:00 am
Favorite Aircraft: .
OS: windoze 10 64-bit
Has thanked: 528 times
Been thanked: 606 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by NightRaven » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:14 pm

Swift wrote:
NightRaven wrote: hahahaha
I see no joke here.
Let me have some fun, alright?
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?
Blackouts, as mentioned before, don't actually take away control, so anyone can switch to F8 view and take the dogfight from there. At most we only have a generic G-Limiter in the form of YSPS.
fk dis place kthxbai

User avatar
Vic Viper
Staff
Staff
Posts: 495
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: 296 times
Been thanked: 180 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vic Viper » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:14 pm

Swift wrote: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.
We don't have to do this. Each one of our planes can have a counterpart and it would be settled. We can still have uniqueness though, with some advantages as long as their weighted against some weaknesses.

I know I keep going back to 171st v 49th pack but it's a good example since I worked very diligently making sure it was balanced. We have some stealth, but their planes can carry a whole lot more ordinance than we can (most of the time)
We also have less flares since most of our stuff can't use flarepods. We also have very specific role aircraft while theirs are very multi role.

I think if we work together we can strike a nice balance similar to this one. I'm not against redefining the Dat standard if the whole community can mostly agree on it.
Swift wrote: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
That's sort of what I'm proposing, but a bit more scientific. I worry though about making planes that are less capable than stock planes, especially if we weren't able to use 49th or GRUN aircraft to go after troublemakers on the servers.
Nodoka Hanamura wrote:Seconded. I want to remind all parties that there are misunderstandings here. I don't want any unnecessary Hostility.
I appreciate that. I want us to work together to make combat great again (2016)

@Nodoka I'm all for cooperation. I want GRUN to do well, and was excited to see Swift making high quality planes for you all. If the issues you and Swift have been settled in your opinion, I'd love to move onto discussing the future of combat dats in YS, and maybe hammer our a few ideas for possible new standards.
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: 785
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:51 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mig-21
Location: The Mün
OS: Windows 10 Home
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 291 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Swift » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:31 pm

Vic Viper wrote:If the issues you and Swift have been settled in your opinion, I'd love to move onto discussing the future of combat dats in YS, and maybe hammer our a few ideas for possible new standards.
Go for it
Image

User avatar
Nodoka Hanamura
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 923
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: 513 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Nodoka Hanamura » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:34 pm

Vic Viper wrote:
Swift wrote: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.
We don't have to do this. Each one of our planes can have a counterpart and it would be settled. We can still have uniqueness though, with some advantages as long as their weighted against some weaknesses.
Agreed, but my general concern is we'll keep outdoing each other and it'll end up like I said in my original post. Like I also said, I welcome aircraft diversity and variance, but when two groups constantly out do one another, It brings general concern as to where to set our limits.
Vic Viper wrote: I know I keep going back to 171st v 49th pack but it's a good example since I worked very diligently making sure it was balanced. We have some stealth, but their planes can carry a whole lot more ordinance than we can (most of the time)
We also have less flares since most of our stuff can't use flarepods. We also have very specific role aircraft while theirs are very multi role.
I think if we work together we can strike a nice balance similar to this one. I'm not against redefining the Dat standard if the whole community can mostly agree on it.
I think what would be good is to expand the F-16 dat standard and generally use either Stock or GAC as a standard for DATs. Our F/A-22X would do well with a F-22 dat, especially with it's PSM capabilities.
Vic Viper wrote: @Nodoka I'm all for cooperation. I want GRUN to do well, and was excited to see Swift making high quality planes for you all. If the issues you and Swift have been settled in your opinion, I'd love to move onto discussing the future of combat dats in YS, and maybe hammer our a few ideas for possible new standards.
Seconded. I don't want hostility betwixt us. That is the last thing I want. I would like it if we could work together and resolve this issue together.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
Image

User avatar
Vic Viper
Staff
Staff
Posts: 495
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: 296 times
Been thanked: 180 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vic Viper » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:51 pm

Okay I'll spit off a few ideas:

First thing that comes to mind is classes. They are in almost every multiplayer game (Mobas, MMORPG's, FPS, etc)

Have an example dat for each class of aircraft (let's discuss smaller aircraft for now). You can tailor an aircraft for that role, but performance must be based on the example. Then you can tweak stuff, make it unique according to it's features, but it must remain balanced and suffer from at least one realistic weakness/short coming

Fighter Classes

  • Light Fighter very maneuverable, limited range, limited ordinance (weight), limited top speed, worst economy, good acceleration)

    Heavy Fighter less maneuverable, greater range, more ordinance, greater top speed, better economy, less acceleration

    Interceptor much less maneuverable, decent range, less ordinance, great top speed, ok economy, best acceleration

    Ground attacker decent maneuverability, good range, most ordinance, low top speed, best economy, worst acceleration, most armor
Image
VFA-49 FORUM

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

User avatar
Nodoka Hanamura
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 923
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: 513 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Nodoka Hanamura » Fri Oct 07, 2016 3:59 pm

Vic Viper wrote:Okay I'll spit off a few ideas:

First thing that comes to mind is classes. They are in almost every multiplayer game (Mobas, MMORPG's, FPS, etc)

Have an example dat for each class of aircraft (let's discuss smaller aircraft for now). You can tailor an aircraft for that role, but performance must be based on the example. Then you can tweak stuff, make it unique according to it's features, but it must remain balanced and suffer from at least one realistic weakness/short coming

Fighter Classes

  • Light Fighter very maneuverable, limited range, limited ordinance (weight), limited top speed, worst economy, good acceleration)

    Heavy Fighter less maneuverable, greater range, more ordinance, greater top speed, better economy, less acceleration

    Interceptor much less maneuverable, decent range, less ordinance, great top speed, ok economy, best acceleration

    Ground attacker decent maneuverability, good range, most ordinance, low top speed, best economy, worst acceleration, most armor
I can second this but allow for a general margin of variation, for instance, have a margin of 100+/- for top speed, 50+/- for economy. Games like older wrestling and Fighting games have charts (even AC has it) to show the variables of what each aircraft can do. If we can set margins as to keep things interesting, It should give us a standard while maintaining some sense of flexibility. For instance, You can have extremely high manuverablity, but you must forgo acceleration or armor or top speed. Or you can have amazing range and economy, at the cost of acceleration.

Thing is, we must do some research into the dats as to figure this system out.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
Image

User avatar
Swift
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:51 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mig-21
Location: The Mün
OS: Windows 10 Home
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 291 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Swift » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:02 pm

like the tuning system in ace combat, you can improve it only so much.
Image

User avatar
Nodoka Hanamura
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 923
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: 513 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Nodoka Hanamura » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:07 pm

Swift wrote:like the tuning system in ace combat, you can improve it only so much.
Nail on the head there swift. This makes it so we don't have to abide to a single dat file, but use said dat file as a basis, and within limits customize it for the exact role it will take.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
Image

User avatar
Vic Viper
Staff
Staff
Posts: 495
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: 296 times
Been thanked: 180 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vic Viper » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:11 pm

Nodoka Hanamura wrote: can second this but allow for a general margin of variation, for instance, have a margin of 100+/- for top speed, 50+/- for economy.

Nail on the head there swift. This makes it so we don't have to abide to a single dat file, but use said dat file as a basis, and within limits customize it for the exact role it will take.
Yes I was going for that. Those classes are just a suggestion. If you wanted something to be extremely good in one area (within reason) it must suffer in other areas. It will take some time to determine a baseline for each, but there are many good examples out there.
Image
VFA-49 FORUM

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

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 4:38 pm

Patrick31337 wrote: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.
my concern isn't with file size Patrick. it is with the amount of aircraft in a pack. see, if you have two or three dat file variants of the same aircraft, and do that with each aircraft. then you would have a very big pack with a looong list of planes that would take a while to scroll through.
Owner, Dragonic Machine Industries
Image

User avatar
Flake
Core Staff
Core Staff
Posts: 4267
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:47 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Boeing F/A-18A
Location: Australia
OS: Windows 10 (x64)
Has thanked: 814 times
Been thanked: 1159 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Flake » Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:11 pm

Okay we've had a problem for years in military YS where dat's can of course be customised and then there are arguments pertaining to performance.

With the help of maths and maybe Decaffs and my own work, I propose a balanced metric system.

You've all seen a spider graph before right?

Well we could use a similar system for YS.

Catagories I'd propose thus far would be acceleration (weight vs thrust), top speed (crit/max speed variables and drag), armament (guns, gun strength, bombs etc.), strength (strength variable), maneuverability (pitch constants etc.) and advanced capabilities (post stall manuevers, thrust vector).

These are all calculated with a program and or method I can write out, and would give a balanced score per .DAT

Of course some variables are more important than others so we would need to review and adjust as a community.

I think this is the way forward to stop arguments. Compare aircraft A to B and see the deficiencies / advantages and also a base score out of 5 or 10 for the aircrafts overall rating. You wouldn't pit a 3 against a 7 but maybe a 6 would suffice, get it?

User avatar
Swift
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 785
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:51 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mig-21
Location: The Mün
OS: Windows 10 Home
Has thanked: 84 times
Been thanked: 291 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Swift » Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:27 pm

AC3 used that for aircraft performance, that would be amazing to use if a program could be made that would adjust the dat accordingly, that'd even be more newb friendly as it's like a WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get) style system. Awesome idea!
Image

User avatar
m88youngling
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:54 pm
Favorite Aircraft: R-9A Arrowhead - F-16C Rainbow Falcon
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 42 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by m88youngling » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:13 am

As things continue while I attempt to set up a provisionary SARF aircraft pack with revised dats, I see more of the controversy about what is the standard for combat aircraft performance in YSFlight. This mainly revolved around the arsenals of the VFA-49 and the arsenal of Grun Solutions, which SARF is a part of.

I've seen this exact problem before elsewhere. One side prefers to use technological advantage, while the other either wants to bring down the playing field a little to even it up, or you have the other side that wants even MORE regulation to keep things purely about their definition of skill.

I've been here at least long enough to see that there's varying categories of piloting skill in this community that aren't just about how one turns or how well one can get out of the gunsights of another behind them. There's also the tactics to think about. Hell, lets say you throw someone like Copperhead in a YF-23 against someone with a significantly better performing aircraft. He has a good chance of losing perhaps, (though given his skill I wouldnt be surprised if he turned the tables) but maybe that sort of tactic just isn't what was necessary to kill the "cheating prick" so to speak. Maybe instead a more heavyweight approach was necessary from high altitude, using looping AMRAAMS and clever strategy/tactics, coordination from AWACS and such. Teamwork, even. I think that multiple reasonable tactics should be considered before jumping to the conclusion that something is a cheat plane. Besides, it might be fun being presented a challenge to take down a superweapon or simply a plane that is just different.

Furthermore, before this turns into a rant, I'll say I agree with the possibility of a metric system or HQ standard that can help establish a system of tradeoffs that could keep things fairer for certain conflicts. Perhaps even several sets of rules to help determine the era of combat, such as modern, post-modern or further (or even the past, but that's not what we really have in mind at the moment.)

Also, I would like to encourage both squadrons to compromise somewhere. I strongly believe that Grun Solutions and the VFA-49 hold the key to combat activity here on YSFHQ, and a friendly rivalry can help stimulate activity and growth. However, not agreeing on something is the worst thing we can do. If one of us has to sacrifice a little bit of pride to do that, remember that this is for the good of YSFHQ as a whole.
Image
SARF Executive Officer (2IC)
[email protected]

User avatar
Midnight Rambler
Staff
Staff
Posts: 2117
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:08 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-16
Location: Australia
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 259 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Midnight Rambler » Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:00 am

I'd just like to add that the exercises being conducted by Grun and the 49th are excellent to watch/participate in.

It's a completely different approach to combat than what I've witnessed before and I have to say it is very challenging. I'd also like to say congrats to the Grun guys. You've all done much better than I though you would, and I have to admit I was shot down many more times than what I was comfortable with if I'm honest. Congrats!
Image

User avatar
m88youngling
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:54 pm
Favorite Aircraft: R-9A Arrowhead - F-16C Rainbow Falcon
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 42 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by m88youngling » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:10 am

I also must (despite the tensions over what should be regulated and what shouldn't) commend the organizational prowess of the 49th and their combat ability.

I've seen alot of bickering from both sides over topics like starting positions, laser guided missiles, aircraft performance and so on, and I'd like to encourage that we continue to talk about it rather than let an "us versus them" mindset take over. We're all part of the same community and it's never going to get anywhere if we don't compromise somehow.
Midnight Rambler wrote:I'd just like to add that the exercises being conducted by Grun and the 49th are excellent to watch/participate in.

It's a completely different approach to combat than what I've witnessed before and I have to say it is very challenging. I'd also like to say congrats to the Grun guys. ...
On this note, I must say this is the most interesting YSF combat has been in my time in terms of how things are set up tactically and geographically. For those not in the know, the VFA-49 has set up the server in such a way that it divides Hawaii into faction territories somewhat. Molokai is fortified by GrunSolutions, while the VFA-49 operate various hidden carrier groups in the area and attack the GrunSolutions base frequently, citing airspace intrusions and training interruptions.

On the flip-side, GrunSolutions feels its own airspace is often intruded and responds in kind. In fact, a VA pilot was shot down by the GrunSol's auto defenses after failing to realize he had accidentally penetrated the airspace. This resulted in a sort of roleplay response from most members of both groups attempting to treat this as if it actually happened, and such an incident is a real issue. Not only is discussing the issue an educational matter, but it also challenges both factions to come up with suitable solutions to such an issue which is incredibly constructive.

However, I've noticed a large problem is that this faction territory system lacks structure and has some easy weaknesses. One faction could easily just hop on and destroy an undefended base simply because the other faction's pilots just weren't online to defend it. (*COUGH*) VFA-49 also holds an advantage in the case of how it fields hidden carriers but GrunSolutions cannot, due to the nature of the server being hosted by the 49th.

I would like to discuss more things about this such as a possible neutral server owner, OpenYS support on that server to allow for things like player controlled carriers and ships, guidelines for a sort of territorial strategy game where each faction controls parts of the map (Hawaii or other), as well as aircraft restrictions or even G-loading like on the WW3 server.

In fact, come to think of it, a lot of this thinking seems to parallel the idea of the WW3 server, if not expand upon it. I never got a chance to experience it.

Cherrio, you made it this far in my rant. Have a cookie.
Image
SARF Executive Officer (2IC)
[email protected]

User avatar
Nodoka Hanamura
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 923
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: 513 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Nodoka Hanamura » Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:19 am

m88youngling wrote:On the flip-side, GrunSolutions feels its own airspace is often intruded and responds in kind. In fact, a VA pilot was shot down by the GrunSol's auto defenses after failing to realize he had accidentally penetrated the airspace. This resulted in a sort of roleplay response from most members of both groups attempting to treat this as if it actually happened, and such an incident is a real issue. Not only is discussing the issue an educational matter, but it also challenges both factions to come up with suitable solutions to such an issue which is incredibly constructive.
Exactly. We know it's the 49th's server and if they are willing to respect our territory on their server, we will respect theirs, at least when combat is not active. We're not going to go blow BOP-49 pilots out of the sky as long as they don't fly over here, and even then, we do interrogate aircraft intruding our airspace and when not intending to attack or civilian, offer escort through or out of the airspace, even allowing them if they can follow close instructions, land at Molokai.

I admit that the Roleplay incident, as our group is Lite-RP, was very fun and allowed for a great break in the monotony, allowing for VFA-49 and GrunSol to work in Tandem, something I think VFA-49 and us fail to realize - Together we are a unstoppable force against griefers and possibly any threat thrown at us on the servers, and it can even create beautiful sights of unity when situations such as The Palm Virtual Incident take place.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
Image

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 » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:25 pm

m88youngling wrote: On the flip-side, GrunSolutions feels its own airspace is often intruded and responds in kind. In fact, a VA pilot was shot down by the GrunSol's auto defences after failing to realise he had accidentally penetrated the airspace. This resulted in a sort of roleplay response from most members of both groups attempting to treat this as if it actually happened, and such an incident is a real issue.
Err... this is a bit worrying. If a new pilot who had only flown in FS9/FSX(which lack weapons) gets shot at or shot down, who would take responsibility and how should we explain it to the pilot?

User avatar
Vic Viper
Staff
Staff
Posts: 495
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: 296 times
Been thanked: 180 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vic Viper » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:39 pm

I've tweaked this. While our new destroyers have a sam range of 15k meters, 2ch ones had double the range. GRUN still has better sam range than we do, but if you stay on the ocean and go around Molokai you should be fine. I might also make all airliners our of adamantium as Pat suggested.
Image
VFA-49 FORUM

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

User avatar
Nodoka Hanamura
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 923
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: 513 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Nodoka Hanamura » Sun Nov 20, 2016 12:41 pm

Vic Viper wrote:I've tweaked this. While our new destroyers have a sam range of 15k meters, 2ch ones had double the range. GRUN still has better sam range than we do, but if you stay on the ocean and go around Molokai you should be fine. I might also make all airliners our of adamantium as Pat suggested.
I've got the girls and boys at Mahora Uni's Research Office doing work on something similar, should be on our cargo and VIP aircraft sooner or later.
YSFan wrote:
m88youngling wrote: On the flip-side, GrunSolutions feels its own airspace is often intruded and responds in kind. In fact, a VA pilot was shot down by the GrunSol's auto defences after failing to realise he had accidentally penetrated the airspace. This resulted in a sort of roleplay response from most members of both groups attempting to treat this as if it actually happened, and such an incident is a real issue.
Err... this is a bit worrying. If a new pilot who had only flown in FS9/FSX(which lack weapons) gets shot at or shot down, who would take responsibility and how should we explain it to the pilot?
Responsibility would be ambiguious.
We would explain to them that we can't control the air defenses and who they attack by aircraft, only by IFF.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest