[DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
- Dragon_Mech
- 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: 94 times
- Been thanked: 127 times
[DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
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.
-
- 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
- Midnight Rambler
- Staff
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:08 pm
- Favorite Aircraft: F-16
- Location: Australia
- OS: Windows 11
- Has thanked: 267 times
- Been thanked: 374 times
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
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.
- Nodoka Hanamura
- Veteran
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:01 pm
- Favorite Aircraft: Su-24, Mig-29, Su-27, F-18, F-15, ADF-01, Icon A5
- OS: Windows 10 / Linux
- Has thanked: 539 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
"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.
- Neocon
- First Class Membership
- Posts: 3955
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:01 am
- Favorite Aircraft: Baron 58
- Location: Tennessee
- OS: Win 10
- Has thanked: 1769 times
- Been thanked: 1810 times
- Contact:
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
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.
- Dragon_Mech
- 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: 94 times
- Been thanked: 127 times
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
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.
- Neocon
- First Class Membership
- Posts: 3955
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 5:01 am
- Favorite Aircraft: Baron 58
- Location: Tennessee
- OS: Win 10
- Has thanked: 1769 times
- Been thanked: 1810 times
- Contact:
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
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.
- Midnight Rambler
- Staff
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:08 pm
- Favorite Aircraft: F-16
- Location: Australia
- OS: Windows 11
- Has thanked: 267 times
- Been thanked: 374 times
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
VicViper wrote:page
VNAF ONE wrote:page
OfficerFlake wrote:page
NightRaven wrote:page
- Flake
- VFA-49
- Posts: 4375
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:47 pm
- Favorite Aircraft: Boeing F/A-18A
- Location: Australia
- OS: Windows 10 (x64)
- Has thanked: 861 times
- Been thanked: 1279 times
- Contact:
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
- YSFan
- Contributor
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:04 am
- Favorite Aircraft: Airbus A380, Saab 340, Lockheed L1011, NAMC YS-11
- OS: Windows 11
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 28 times
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
-
- Senior Veteran
- Posts: 1851
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:00 am
- Favorite Aircraft: .
- OS: windoze 10 64-bit
- Has thanked: 617 times
- Been thanked: 619 times
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
hahahahaNodoka 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.
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.
- Vic Viper
- Staff
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:01 pm
- Favorite Aircraft: de Havilland Mosquito
- Location: -9° 59' 6.90", -138° 49' 35.51
- OS: Windows 2001
- Has thanked: 392 times
- Been thanked: 199 times
- Contact:
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
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)
VFA-49 FORUM
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
I see no joke here.NightRaven wrote: hahahaha
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: 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.
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.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.
- Vic Viper
- Staff
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:01 pm
- Favorite Aircraft: de Havilland Mosquito
- Location: -9° 59' 6.90", -138° 49' 35.51
- OS: Windows 2001
- Has thanked: 392 times
- Been thanked: 199 times
- Contact:
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
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)
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.
VFA-49 FORUM
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
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.
- Vic Viper
- Staff
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:01 pm
- Favorite Aircraft: de Havilland Mosquito
- Location: -9° 59' 6.90", -138° 49' 35.51
- OS: Windows 2001
- Has thanked: 392 times
- Been thanked: 199 times
- Contact:
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
One more thing for the wishlist I suppose.
VFA-49 FORUM
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
- Midnight Rambler
- Staff
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:08 pm
- Favorite Aircraft: F-16
- Location: Australia
- OS: Windows 11
- Has thanked: 267 times
- Been thanked: 374 times
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
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.Swift wrote: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.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.
Seems like this was all a misunderstanding after all. Speaking of which, i have an idea to help combat a little for now.
- Nodoka Hanamura
- Veteran
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:01 pm
- Favorite Aircraft: Su-24, Mig-29, Su-27, F-18, F-15, ADF-01, Icon A5
- OS: Windows 10 / Linux
- Has thanked: 539 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
The reason being that G-forces are coded very unrealistically, mainly on the overbearing side.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.
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.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)
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.
I have to second NR's mentality. I never truly liked the Stock F-16 dogfights, and the War Thunder comparison is perfect.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.
We've solved our issues, But 121 is undergoing some internal changes.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)
Whatever it may be, I am all ears.Midnight Rambler wrote: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.Swift wrote: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.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.
Seems like this was all a misunderstanding after all. Speaking of which, i have an idea to help combat a little for now.
Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests