[DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

User avatar
Swift
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 763
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:51 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mig-41 Firefly, Mig-21, F/A-53A Foxtrot
Location: The Mün
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 281 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Swift » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:07 pm

Doomsday wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:05 am
You are forgetting that this is an arcade game, not a realistic game. The planes here will never match their real life counterparts.
Flake wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:56 pm
BFM videos, combat techniques discussion etc. were frequent in these days.
Image
Image

User avatar
Flake
Staff
Staff
Posts: 4121
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:47 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Honda CBR600RR. Shit I mean Boeing F/A-18A.
Location: Newcastle, Australia
OS: Windows 10 (x64)
Has thanked: 752 times
Been thanked: 1022 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Flake » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:10 pm

Yeah it is a game, but we can apply real world techniques still. ;)

Believe me, circle geometry was a massive talking point back in the CVW171 vs VFA49 days.
Image
(At this stage, I get more enjoyment coding for this game then playing it. Weird right?)

User avatar
Krux
CVW-171
CVW-171
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 11:25 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Flankers
Location: Brasil
OS: Windows 10 Pro x64
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 68 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Krux » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:55 pm

m88youngling wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:48 pm
Can we all respect one another and continue this maturely, or should I expect more bullying and antagonization? I'd like to know this before we continue.
GrunSol drama all over again.

Sorry if in any of my replies i may sound rough, but yeah, expect more antagonization as we're trying to discuss problems. That is the whole point of it. Unless you have or find any common ground to share with the guys showing their points of view, they will stand their ground.
Image

User avatar
Lucas_OR
Modding Team
Modding Team
Posts: 1077
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:42 am
Favorite Aircraft: All
Location: Federative Republic of Brazil - near GRU
OS: Windows 10 64 Bits
Has thanked: 1244 times
Been thanked: 496 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Lucas_OR » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:40 pm

Can we just forget the past problems and start a new one? The sadness part: We're stuck in conflicts.
We alredy have only a few peoples on YSFlight, and we're not able to get affordable in this community.
YSFlight is getting self-destructed.

User avatar
Midnight Rambler
Senior Veteran
Senior Veteran
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:08 pm
Favorite Aircraft: F-16
Location: Australia
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 354 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Midnight Rambler » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:05 am

DuckFeet97LOR wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:40 pm
Can we just forget the past problems and start a new one? The sadness part: We're stuck in conflicts.
We alredy have only a few peoples on YSFlight, and we're not able to get affordable in this community.
YSFlight is getting self-destructed.
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.

Chill out :lol:
Image

Vx_Lotus
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:39 am
Favorite Aircraft: F-22A
OS: windows 7
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vx_Lotus » Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:26 am

NightRaven wrote:
Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:11 am
one 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".
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.

Many games have balancing issues and many do have that key that sets the balance in motion. We ask questions to find out what those are scientifically. Including testing an enemy plane in this case. Our biggest discovery was the actual speed of the sr71 and what it was actually capable of in IRL. For those of you who do not know. YS Flight was created by a college student at the time who had to go through the same process to put everything in the game. However his data is not as knowledgeable as it is today, so many planes you fly in the game actually go many times faster than what they feel. Now as for the SQUADS" preference Rambler and Swift hit the hammer on the nail when they both state that they go for a type" for instance in IRL there are 3 types of jets mainly (FIGHTER, MULTI-ROLE, INTERCEPTOR) and each of these is broken down even further, FIGHTER - lightweight, middle, heavy .. ect.. this list is the same for all three. Multi-Role is where it gets complicated and people feel like they are cheated or overwhelmed.

Multi-Role is:
1:
Some aircraft are called swing-role, to emphasize the ability of a quick role change, either at short notice, or even within the same mission. According to the Military Dictionary : "the ability to employ a multi-role aircraft for multiple purposes during the same mission."
2:
More roles can be added, such as aerial reconnaissance, forward air control, and electronic-warfare aircraft. Attack missions include the subtypes air interdiction, suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), and close air support (CAS).
3:
Both of these two types are broken down into 3 weight classes.
F-16 Fighting Falcon , JAS 39 Gripen, Mirage 2000 ( most used in YS )

Our 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!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirole_combat_aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft
Image

User avatar
Nodoka Hanamura
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 906
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: 505 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Nodoka Hanamura » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:56 pm

Midnight Rambler wrote:
Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:27 am
I'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.
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.
Image

User avatar
Vic Viper
Staff
Staff
Posts: 469
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: 242 times
Been thanked: 170 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vic Viper » Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:36 pm

Vx_Lotus wrote:
Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:26 am
Our 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!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirole_combat_aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft
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.

One bit of advise though, you'll rustle less jimmies if you do most of your testing on your own server, and only try out the latest stuff on the major servers when it's really been balance tested.
Image
VFA-49 FORUM

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

User avatar
ZyreaxGaming_YT
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:40 am
Favorite Aircraft: mc-21 (Commercial), A-7 (Military), Co50 (Private)
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 83 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by ZyreaxGaming_YT » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:38 pm

Vic Viper wrote:
Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:36 pm
matter than your predecessors
Check previous quote...[expects shit storm to erupt]
Efforts and courage are not enough without purpose and direction. ~ John F. Kennedy

User avatar
VNAF ONE
Senior Veteran
Senior Veteran
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:16 am
Favorite Aircraft: A-10C Thunderbolt II
Location: Indiana/Florida
OS: Windows 10
Has thanked: 212 times
Been thanked: 390 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by VNAF ONE » Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:00 pm

Honestly though, I don't care who has what and how it flies. Some of us want conventional modern dogfights that attempt to use real tactics. In fact, some old squadmembers of YS moved to other sims with techniques learned here. It's a simple way of doing things.

Others want YS to be like Ace Combat and do crazy rediculous stuff and have awesome airplanes that are far more advanced than what the world currently has to offer. This is totally fine too. The problem is when you try to pit them against one another. Obviously a 3 year old can figure out why that's a bad idea so just don't do it. Play online with each other, but don't take things to unfair or biased levels and everyone's fine. There's a reason WarThunder has tiers...

I mean, the main question of this topic is super simple.
VNAF Aerobatics Commanding Officer and Founder - - - YSAS Member - - - YS Aerobatic Pilot
YS ACC A-10 East Coast Demo Team pilot - - - B-1B Razor Demo Team pilot
VFA-49 GhostHawks Commanding Officer
Image

Vx_Lotus
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 1:39 am
Favorite Aircraft: F-22A
OS: windows 7
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vx_Lotus » Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:52 pm

Perhaps all of this is the true answer... I would propose a designated server of each type? Or a change to Ys main source code to implement classes by selection.
Image

User avatar
Swift
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 763
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:51 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mig-41 Firefly, Mig-21, F/A-53A Foxtrot
Location: The Mün
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 281 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Swift » Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:05 pm

Vx_Lotus wrote:
Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:52 pm
implement classes by selection.
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.
MWO Mech ClassesShow
Light/Scout: These are very fast and have barely enough armor to survive hits from larger mechs. Flip side is with proper weight management they can carry very powerful weapons but at the expense of heatsinks.

Medium: These are the halfway point in the mech tree when it comes to speed and armor, you won't see them on the front lines but most favor rather well given a good pilot.

Heavy: I myself pilot one of these, they aren't the fastest, but you will see them packing powerful weapons and loads of missiles, they can take hits but they aren't fast or agile.

Assault: These you will most likely see forming a wall in the front with their daunting armor and long range weapons, always a weakness as they are super slow, not very agile, and the armor on their backs is pitiful.


I know this has nothing to do with YS, but it's kind of an idea how you can use that here, seeing as a Light can be considered an F-16 and an Assault can be considered a bomber.
Image

User avatar
Vic Viper
Staff
Staff
Posts: 469
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: 242 times
Been thanked: 170 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Vic Viper » Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:15 pm

I've played. It has its balance problems, but having mass and heat as a restriction helps. We've tossed this idea around a little before, and I think we should try it. We need classes of combat aircraft, and hard ceilings for each performance category (weight, thrust, payload, AOA, acceleration etc) Squadrons will have to work within the restrictions.

This is the same process video game devs go through when making multiplayer games, we'll just have to do Soji's work for him? (but you can't really blame him for giving us free reign on dats)

Of course, it'll still be a gentleman's agreement, nothing in the game can stop the rules from being broken, except maybe server owners really enforcing these rules on everyone, even their own squadron. This has worked in the past between the 171st and the 49th (recent history ppl)

I suggest we still leave room for innovation and wacky ideas. But such a system would solve our problems, for the most part.

PS Can't forget Flake's great performance database idea
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: 763
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:51 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Mig-41 Firefly, Mig-21, F/A-53A Foxtrot
Location: The Mün
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 281 times
Contact:

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Swift » Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:23 pm

Vic Viper wrote:
Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:15 pm
PS Can't forget Flake's great performance database idea
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
Image

User avatar
Flake
Staff
Staff
Posts: 4121
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:47 pm
Favorite Aircraft: Honda CBR600RR. Shit I mean Boeing F/A-18A.
Location: Newcastle, Australia
OS: Windows 10 (x64)
Has thanked: 752 times
Been thanked: 1022 times

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Post by Flake » Fri Apr 07, 2017 10:35 am

You guys write the rules up and I'll write the code to make it happen. ;)

(The code already exists, it just needs tweaking...)
Image
(At this stage, I get more enjoyment coding for this game then playing it. Weird right?)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests