Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:07 pm
The best English YSFlight fan community since 2010.
GrunSol drama all over again.
The moment there is a difference of opinion there seems to be a mass calamity with claims the community to being destroyed. It isn't. We're just a small community and an argument seems to involve a larger percentage of the forum members and so it seems much larger.
Hello all, I am one of the engineers from [SARF] I would like to try to help clear some of this up. I'm not a fan of confusion. And I love the YSF community so If at all possible I would like to put this age old question to rest. I have seen this happen increasingly as the years go by. So to NightRaven who appeared to have the best logical solution. We have been testing against all types of craft up to and including the "Gripen" from 171 mk 203, Stock F-16, Super-flankers from many servers, F-14 tomcats from all over. To an avail our results concluded that SARF just wasn't ready to release when it did. From an engineering aspect the data just wasn't quite all there due to balance as other [SARF] members have tried pressing before. [SARF] mostly interceptor class craft (generally fast planes that go mach 1.5 or better) However they also lack in many other things like Missile Lock On range, Stealth, Acceleration, Breaking Speed, Rolling, Rotation Speed, Turning Speed on some, Stall points and many many other problems to craft I have come across in squad packs, GRUN has issues, 171 has issues but they seem to be mostly acceleration related. And then there are the few planes that have it all. F-16FX, and others... Yes some planes can be considered overpowered for all squads. Which is why we try to keep this heated discussion at a non-boiling point. The game was meant to be fun and not argued over as Doomsday is clearly adding to the flames. I have many years with YS-Flight since it's first release. I may not talk as much as the next guy but there is a point when something must be squashed like this thread. ( I only made a post to find out what their preferences would be to make the perfect plane ) The point was actually a bit of an experiment. So I will have to apologize to all of you. So I'm sorry for that. However it was not without sacrifice. Everyone loves their planes, some fast, some big, some slow, some so futuristic you just have to test it, some very old and you think it must be rusty and wonder if you should even touch it for fear of getting tetanus.NightRaven wrote: ↑Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:11 amone recommendation from me is to pit yourself against your own squad aircraft, so u will get an understanding of what other squads experience when they go up against your squad. for example, if u are in sarf, try flying 171st/49th aircraft against [SARF] aircraft. If u can beat your squad aircraft, at least u have a stronger claim in asserting that your aircraft are not "cheaty".
This concept is nice but needs some fleshing out, preferably interim classes, such as those for WW1, Early Cold War (F-14A), Near Futuristic (Concept such as those fielded by Swift and Xpand could fit here.), Early Space Flight.Midnight Rambler wrote: ↑Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:27 amI've always thought that having numerous... classes of squads could be fun. We've always had the 171/49/grun/nun type squads where everyone tries to keep combat similar even though some aircraft are clearly inappropriately matched.
Maybe something like:
Class 1 - WW2 Era squadron
Class 2 - current 171/49/grun/nun
Class 3 - futuristic combat
Class 4 - space/robot combat
People can join a squad in a class, and only squads in a particular class would fight each other (no class 1 vs class 5 for example). This would also open up the opportunity for traditional squad members to mix up rosters; for example I fly with 171 in Class 2, but my main squad mates in class 3 or class 1 may be pilots originally in NUN or 49th.
I'm only on my phone and thinking on the fly but what are peoples thoughts? It could really open up combat and make it more interesting to a greater range of people amd potentially have increased participation.
I like this guy. I do appreciate you gents are a bit more flexible in this matter than your predecessors. I've promised m88 I would help you guys out in the past, now that I'm back online I'll get off my butt and actually do it.Vx_Lotus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:26 amOur group [SARF] is simply trying to solve the imbalance problem in YS. And yet we get bashed and bruised by people who do not understand Scientific research. So with all do respect let us do our job and fix it. If you want the complaints to stop why don't you just help us fix it? If we do this granted is a daunting job to get it all done.
YS can grow into something more. The best thing is...... It's FREE!
I actually think a class system would be wonderful, so long as the dats themselves can reflect that. It's been my experience in Mechwarrior Online that you have several types of mechs.
When it comes to hard ceilings that would totally be of help. Having a set limit to what you can do in one field while having it negate or enhance other fields in a realistic manner would bring a lot of new dat setups. love to try it on a lot of the planes i've been working on too