Notify Message
Forums
Page 1
Search
#12695365 Sep 09, 2016 at 08:52 PM
Major General
721 Posts
Hey peeps

Just wondering - how much realism do you all want in events?

Anything from full-spectrum logistical where you have to deliver missiles to airbases before you can equip them, to one life only, to full briefings and ROE, MGRS references and radio nav required, all the way down to just get up in the air and shoot missiles at one another.

All opinions are valid!

As for me, I love the challenge of getting a briefing, and having to fly in certain parameters with navigation challenges and stuff. One life only, lots of complexity. I wouldn't go "full logistical", but I love flying as realistically as possible.
long live the 88th
+0
#12696049 Sep 10, 2016 at 05:12 AM · Edited over 2 years ago
Colonel
573 Posts
The one-life idea is nice but, as we saw in the July event, if there's no really need to down someone, well you try to avoid it in order to keep your life for later and continue the mission, unless it's really required.
If you have one life only, you try to keep it as long as you can till the end, and this isn't a good thing because there's no fight or at least it's reduced to the essential.
This is my point of view.
If there are enough pilots during an event, a SAR mission for the downed pilot would be nice to do (like in the May FG Festival).
If the SAR is succesful, the pilot'd get his life back and continue the game.
Mav
Breakin' the sound barrier everyday!
Peace through superior AIRPOWER

Buzzard Viper Driver, 510th FS.
Reaper Eagle Driver, 493d FS.
+0
#12698978 Sep 11, 2016 at 03:38 PM
Brigadier Ge...
343 Posts
Since the group was founded, the goal has always been to increase the challenge and increase the realism. Unfortunately, as we have taken on new members and their skills (or goals) have differed, we got crossed somehow.

When FB and I started this, we wanted to breed the best pilots, who make decisions and fight as close to like real pilots as possible. Some things we do help us toward that, such as Pinto's nav lessons and Yesrev's formation team.

The ability to immediately respawn was a needed artificiality due to having a small group of players. In reality, no pilot will sacrafice a 30-100 million dollar plane and their lives unless they have to. The ability to make informed decisions about position and orientation is something we have always wanted to breed, but can't when there are no consequences.

One of the biggest reasons I have taken time away from OPRF is because of the willingness of some of our pilots to throw tactics out the window and just go kamakazee. There is nothing fun to me about flying straight and shooting missiles.

That said, if there is a group out there that wants to get back to fighting to live, let me know.
Raider1

(Combat call-signs: Raid-1, Raid-2)
+2
#12699205 Sep 11, 2016 at 05:23 PM
Major General
721 Posts
Totally agree, Raider1
long live the 88th
+1
#12705170 Sep 13, 2016 at 09:22 PM
Captain
240 Posts
The first (realistic) extreme, except the single-life limitation, certainly seems far preferable to the other extreme. I advocate multiple (but maybe still finite) lives because we are far smaller as a group than a realistic air force. Speaking of lives, instead of a lives system we can perhaps have a game mechanic where ejected players have to be recovered by SAR before they can fly again, and also need a new aircraft and armament delivered by a logistical system. This seems to be overall less of a compromise than a simple simple lives system.
😡😔😳😑😐😏😉😀😅
+1
#12707677 Sep 14, 2016 at 07:50 PM
Colonel
573 Posts
I somehow agree with SNOWY1, both because it's more or less my point of view and both because he gave me an idea which could make future events more interesting.
...armament delivered by a logistical system

This is great! I mean, we always started events by fighting, doing recons, bombing and all that stuff but why don't we introduce a "before you get operational readiness, you have to deliver armament and similar with military cargo planes to the designed main air base"? So that would be a game changer because of additional strategy required and then you also get a time-challenge with the other Team. I know we tried in July and didn't went so well but I think that we could try to focus on this a little but more (maybe by introducing new aircrafts like C-17,...).

After saying this I admit that Raider1's speech should make us do a sort of "reflective pause" about what are we really trying to do in OPRF, how and how to improve it so the whole experience would be more enjoyable, realistic and attractive for other people in FG.
Mav
Breakin' the sound barrier everyday!
Peace through superior AIRPOWER

Buzzard Viper Driver, 510th FS.
Reaper Eagle Driver, 493d FS.
+0
#12708001 Sep 14, 2016 at 10:23 PM · Edited over 2 years ago
Major General
721 Posts
Swamp already developed an amazing cargo plane for us, the C130J. It's not on his Github, so I'll see if I still have a copy. Unless swamp, you still around? It was really well done.

The only downside is the kamikazee mentality makes it really hard for the cargo plane to get anywhere. If you have infinite lives, then you have nothing to lose by trying to hit it again and again, even if that means overextending your plane in reference to fuel.

Some sort of death-sucks mechanic could be a huge game changer. If not one-life-only, then a respawn timer or a respawn amount cap or a combo. Like, how much more careful would you be if you had to wait 5 or 10 or 15 minutes from the time you hit the ground to the time you were back up? And you had to start at a gate and taxi?

Or, heck, logistics includes transporting fuel, and you have to keep track of fuel usage?
Dang. That'd be HUGELY limiting.

EDIT: I still have the C-130J. The FDM is really good, and it has an OPRF livery, but the cockpit could use some lovin.







long live the 88th
+0
#12708111 Sep 14, 2016 at 11:29 PM
Major General
721 Posts
More relate to to the topic, it comes down to how much complexity we are willing to accept.

Radio nav is something close to my heart - it's really fun to do. But how many people would fail if we told them to take off from KSFA and follow radial 060 of the COE VOR? That's a very basic part of flying a plane. It takes a little to learn, but if we are dedicated to realism then why not invest that time? Until it becomes second nature?

But, again, that's added complexity. Are we willing to accept that complexity in the name of realism? If we are dedicated to our craft and our airframes, spending a little bit of time each week would have you up to snuff in no time.

Logistics is great in theory. But it adds a whole metric ton more overhead and complexity. Is this acceptable? Are we ready to raise the bar for new and current members?

I am all for this. Give me complexity and depth. But realize this translates to more work, more thinking, and not just hopping onto FlightGear for a game of Warthunder with more modern planes and crappier graphics. When your pre-op briefing is less "fly here" and more "cross this radial at this distance", can we handle this?
long live the 88th
+0
#12708648 Sep 15, 2016 at 06:25 AM
Major
5 Posts
Taxiing when you respawn is good I think, you would have to add parking positions.
For a SAR-flight after each Crash we are not enough, so I would say respawn after ~15 minutes or if you get rescue by SAR.
If you want limitet fuel on the airports, you can also say that only 10 planes per hour may take off from each base, a transport flight adds 10 takeoffs.
+1
#12709277 Sep 15, 2016 at 01:35 PM
Colonel
573 Posts
Well if we are dealing with more complex navigation, I think that this should be included:



This is for carrier landing but I can tell you from real life experience based on frequent planespotting at military airfields that this is applicable to most fighter jets' approaching procedure.
Mav
Breakin' the sound barrier everyday!
Peace through superior AIRPOWER

Buzzard Viper Driver, 510th FS.
Reaper Eagle Driver, 493d FS.
+1
#12709291 Sep 15, 2016 at 01:42 PM
Major General
721 Posts
@JMav, most US airbases have published IFR approach procedures if you'd like to check them out.
long live the 88th
+0
#12710082 Sep 15, 2016 at 07:15 PM · Edited over 2 years ago
Major General
721 Posts
Found more info on that landing procedure. It's called a run and break, or an overhead maneuver. Sounds really freaking useful, actually.

Couple of highlights:
VFR conditions are a must, and if you're on an IFR flight plan, it needs to be cancelled before you can perform the maneuver.

You need ATC clearance to do it, and you'll usually hold a ways out for the traffic pattern to clear.

It's a good way to confuse piss off help teach new procedures to the ATC in FlightGear, so enjoy.

http://www.cfinotebook.net/notebook/aircraft-operations/approaches/overhead-approach-maneuver

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4300833/FID2415/ATPUBS/atc/p0310012.htm

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4300833/FID2415/ATPUBS/aim/p0504024.htm

Learned something new, thanks!
long live the 88th
+0
#12710177 Sep 15, 2016 at 07:51 PM · Edited over 2 years ago
Colonel
573 Posts
#12710082 pinto wrote:

It's called a run and break, or an overhead maneuver. Sounds really freaking useful, actually.


Yep, that name. I try to perform it as much as possible when I can. There was a period when I was trying only that maneuver for dozens of times in FG with the F-16C over LIPA. I tell you in real life it's amazing to see, especially at Aviano when they perform touch n goes with that, at the end of the runway the pull up and turn nearly vertically and climb to about 1,500ft and fly close to the mountains then return to base course and perform a really steep and short approach.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/FRLC19MRQ8mVPaxX0B8hhEMa2-BNO1WHOeMGHomGYP-gPBTFPBBtLUup5tTvxMxZWzFdENXv2w=w2560-h1440-rw-no

Also it's a lovely thing in a 4-ship formation break-out and land.
Mav
Breakin' the sound barrier everyday!
Peace through superior AIRPOWER

Buzzard Viper Driver, 510th FS.
Reaper Eagle Driver, 493d FS.
+0
#12717649 Sep 18, 2016 at 07:05 PM · Edited over 2 years ago
Captain
240 Posts
Thanks to you all for your agreement regarding the need for increased emphasis on realism.

Any ideas for improved rules regarding simulated SAR? Also, can we try using the DHC6 as an SAR aircraft? Regarding comments that we do not have the people for a full SAR simulation, I mostly agree. However, it may still be better to implement a slow and time-consuming SAR system, including having to land the DHC6 near the crash site, then to handwave it away with a simple time delay. This would both improve realism and discourage carelessness. It would also be more fun for all involved.

Should it be acceptable to shoot down the other team's SAR plane?

I agree with the taxi-on-respawn suggestion. Is there any workaround to the current unusability of parking spots?

Maybe just use a damage-enabled 777-200F as a transport if finding a good long-ranged one (e.g. C-5, C-17) becomes too much of a problem. This sounds like something a desperate government would be willing to do in wartime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation). Also, we do not strictly represent any particular country anyway, so there is no need to adhere to the inventory of a particular country unless we are playing "for" it in an event.

What is so problematic about radio navigation? (In reference to a post that said that many people cannot fly a VOR radial)

If one team attains readiness before the other (or obtains some specific advantage) owing to their efficient logistics, perhaps allow them (event rules permitting) to disrupt the logistical operations of the other team. This provides a good incentive to do logistics properly, and simulates the consequences of inefficiency in war.

In short:
Are we willing to accept that complexity in the name of realism?

Yes.
😡😔😳😑😐😏😉😀😅
+1
#12718978 Sep 19, 2016 at 07:51 AM · Edited over 2 years ago
Major General
721 Posts
#12717649 SNOWY1 wrote:


Also, can we try using the DHC6 as an SAR aircraft?



If the DHC6 works, go for it! It'd need damage code. Also, be aware the flightgear doesn't really like planes when they are on the ground but not on a runway, so taking off again might not be possible.

As far as other options, there's always heli's. But we would need a heli with complete damage. All the ones we have now don't have engine failure, which is a dealbreaker.

#12717649 SNOWY1 wrote:

Should it be acceptable to shoot down the other team's SAR plane?



I'd definitely say yes to this, if we do SAR.

Other thoughts on SAR - the people issue is a huge problem. Also, it can take 30-45 minutes to just fly from the base to the downed aircraft. Heli's and their ilk go 200kts max (and that's generous), so to have a SAR mission where the plane was shot down a hundred miles from base means you have two people minimum out for at least an hour and a half. That's a huge chunk of time. Even longer if the SARcraft gets shot down.

#12717649 SNOWY1 wrote:

I agree with the taxi-on-respawn suggestion. Is there any workaround to the current unusability of parking spots?



You can look it up on http://maps.google.com, right click and "What's here?", then pass --lat=xx.xxxx --lon=xxx.xxxx and --heading=xxx to your FlightGear. FFGo will do this automatically with the Fake Parkpos option. This also may be fixed in 2016.3.1, but not sure.

#12717649 SNOWY1 wrote:

Maybe just use a damage-enabled 777-200F as a transport if finding a good long-ranged one (e.g. C-5, C-17) becomes too much of a problem. This sounds like something a desperate government would be willing to do in wartime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation). Also, we do not strictly represent any particular country anyway, so there is no need to adhere to the inventory of a particular country unless we are playing "for" it in an event.



Swamp's C130J is really good, and I highly recommend it.

Also, I think the unofficial word is we are an unaffiliated paramilitary organization. At least that's how we treated ourselves at the Festival.

#12717649 SNOWY1 wrote:

What is so problematic about radio navigation? (In reference to a post that said that many people cannot fly a VOR radial)



It was an example of complexity - in other words, if people don't want to learn how to use radios to navigate, which is basic airman knowledge, are we really ready to step up to far more complex stuff such as logistic management and realistic combat flightplans?

#12717649 SNOWY1 wrote:

If one team attains readiness before the other (or obtains some specific advantage) owing to their efficient logistics, perhaps allow them (event rules permitting) to disrupt the logistical operations of the other team. This provides a good incentive to do logistics properly, and simulates the consequences of inefficiency in war.



Most definitely. In my head, here's a "simplistic" logistics game:

Each team has one "main base", which is well in their territory, and two forward bases which have either zero or very little supplies. For the sake of simplicity, the main base has infinite everything, but is quite far away. A C130J would need to transport missiles/fuel/whatever (variant, C130J transports missiles and plane parts for limited respawns at the forward base, and a KC-10A or 707TT has to deliver the fuel). We'd have to keep track of missiles and fuel at each forward base, probably via a shared google drive spreadsheet. When the transport lands, it updates what it has delivered, which needs to be within the realistic weight limits of what the plane could actually take.

So, the C130J delivers 100 AIM120s, and 100 tons of fuel. The fighter pilot would then, after loading up and before takeoff, have to go into the spreadsheet and say "I took 6 AIM120s, and loaded up with 12,000 lbs of JP-5."

Keeping track this way would not only add that logistical realism to it, but would also add the incentive to fly economically and not waste fuel unless absolutely needed.

If the C130J gets shot down, then shoot, no supplies.

We can make it as complicated as we want to, really.
long live the 88th
+0
#12720698 Sep 19, 2016 at 07:38 PM
Colonel
573 Posts
#12718978 pinto wrote:


So, the C130J delivers 100 AIM120s, and 100 tons of fuel. The fighter pilot would then, after loading up and before takeoff, have to go into the spreadsheet and say "I took 6 AIM120s, and loaded up with 12,000 lbs of JP-5."

Keeping track this way would not only add that logistical realism to it, but would also add the incentive to fly economically and not waste fuel unless absolutely needed.


In that way we could also count how much money would be spent in real-life ops, (ranging from launched missiles, downed planes, fuel, etc.) ;) .
Not that it is important, but I always wanted to know much would have been spent in events.

BTW, the KC-10A isn't only a tanker, but also a cargo plane, so it could transport missiles and similar alongside with fuel.
Also, don't forget the advantages the KC-137R can bring into the battlefield, now it's cockpit is very similar to the real-life Block 45, and yet it ain't finished.
Mav
Breakin' the sound barrier everyday!
Peace through superior AIRPOWER

Buzzard Viper Driver, 510th FS.
Reaper Eagle Driver, 493d FS.
+0
Page 1