Load out configuration Poll

[Echo38]

Crumpp, I'm gonna try this one last time:

 

I think the entirety of the contention in this thread stems from your accusations (both implied and stated) that taking off with less than a certain amount of fuel is non-sim behavior--not from your actual core request. The actual thing that you're asking for--the option for servers to enforce specific fuel loads--is a reasonable thing to ask for, and I don't think many (if any) would have fought you, if you hadn't made it personal, with things like this:

 

The percentage slider would be included under the "game options" and tankage menu under the "sim" option.

 

Phrased this way, it can only be taken as an accusation that the slider is non-sim, used by people who don't care as much about accurate simulation. More importantly, if incorporated into the sim in the manner you describe, we who disagree would be forced to effectively agree with your accusation, by choosing a "game" (as opposed to "sim") option, in order to be able to adjust our slider.

 

Do you see? If you ask for a mission editor option (which effectively gives you what you're asking for--the option for server operators to enforce fuel loads), or even a server-side game option, which does not contain an opinion in the label ("sim" vs. "arcade/game"), then those of us who prefer the option to adjust our fuel amount incrementally have little reason to oppose you. I would vote for mission editor options like this, in general; as you said, more options is good. However, if you're going to make your argument hang on the issue or whether or not it is "sim" to be able to adjust fuel loads incrementally, then you're going to find much more resistance against your core proposal, simply because of the opinionated "extra baggage" you've attached to it.

 

To conclude, "Give us a server-side option to lock fuel loads" is hard to argue with. "Give us a server-side option to lock fuel loads, and make sure everyone understands that the fuel slider is non-sim" isn't going to fly. The latter opinion is easy to argue against, and it just drags down your (legitimate) core request. Too much "my way is right and your way is wrong," and not nearly enough reasoning to back it up. I've already lucidly made my case for why I disagree with it, and I'm not going to change your mind by adding to it. Hopefully, however, this post has given you a different perspective on how you could phrase the request/suggestion for a more positive reception. It'd be enough that at least some of the "no" votes would have been a "yes," instead, or at least an abstain.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Echo38

[Echo38]

I've made a number of small edits to my previous post after posting it, as is my usual habit (first publish, then proofread!). Comparing the "before" and "after" versions, I think that some of the meaning (as opposed to merely phraseology) has changed, in a significant enough manner that you may wish to review the edited version. Apologies.

[mjmorrow]

Crumpp, I'm gonna try this one last time:

 

I think the entirety of the contention in this thread stems from your accusations (both implied and stated) that taking off with less than a certain amount of fuel is non-simmer behavior--not from your actual core request. The actual thing that you're asking for--the option for servers to enforce specific fuel loads--is very reasonable, and I don't think many (if any) would have fought you, if you hadn't made it personal, with things like this:

 

 

 

Phrased this way, it can only be taken as an accusation that the slider is non-sim. More importantly, if incorporated into the sim in the manner you describe, we who disagree would be forced to effectively agree with your accusation, by choosing a "game" (as opposed to "sim") option, in order to be able to adjust our slider.

 

Do you see? If you ask for a mission editor option (which effectively gives you what you're asking for--the option for server operators to enforce fuel loads), or even a server-side game option, which does not contain an opinion in the label ("sim" vs. "arcade"), then those of us who prefer the option to adjust our fuel amount incrementally have little reason to oppose you. I certainly would vote for more mission editor options like this; as you said, more options is good. However, if you're going to make your argument hang on the issue or whether or not it is "sim" to be able to adjust fuel loads incrementally, then you're going to find much more resistance against your core proposal, simply because of the opinionated "extra baggage" you've attached to it.

 

To conclude, "Give us a server-side option to lock fuel loads" is hard to argue with. "Give us a server-side option to lock fuel loads, and make sure everyone understands that the fuel slider is non-sim" isn't going to fly. The latter opinion is easy to argue against, and it just drags down your (legitimate) core request. Too much "my way is right and your way is wrong," and not nearly enough reason to back it up. I've already lucidly made my case for why I disagree with it, and I'm not going to change your mind by adding to it. Hopefully, however, this post has given you a different perspective on how you could phrase the original poll for a more positive reception. It's enough that at least some of the "no" votes would have been "yes."

 

+1 I like Josh's position. A mission editor option or a server-side game option, which does not rank the one approach to fuel load outs and the other approach to fuel load outs, as simulation level vs arcade level, would proactively address the desire for alternatives to the present situation, without attempting to shape flight simmer hobbyist opinions on which is more of an accurate simulator setting for multiplayer competitive game play. Attempting to rank one appoach over the other, as sim worthy or arcade worthy, would likely needlessly offend a number of competitive flight simmers, would divide the flight simmer community, and for no good reason, at the end of the day. :thumbup: MJ

Edited December 4, 2015 by mjmorrow

[Crumpp]

All of DCS is a game. People enjoy that game differently.

 

Echo38 says:

I don't think many (if any) would have fought you, if you hadn't made it personal, with things like this:

 

Originally Posted by Crumpp View Post

The percentage slider would be included under the "game options" and tankage menu under the "sim" option.

 

 

[Crumpp]

+1 I like Josh's position. A mission editor option or a server-side game option, which does not rank the one approach to fuel load outs and the other approach to fuel load outs, as simulation level vs arcade level, would proactively address the desire for alternatives to the present situation, without attempting to shape flight simmer hobbyist opinions on which is more of an accurate simulator setting for multiplayer competitive game play. Attempting to rank one appoach over the other, as sim worthy or arcade worthy, would likely needlessly offend a number of competitive flight simmers, would divide the flight simmer community, and for no good reason, at the end of the day. MJ

 

I say we tear down ED for even having a "sim" and "game" tab! The nerve of those guys!

 

How dare they divide the flight sim community!!

 

http://themillennialvoices.org/2015/02/22/when-did-we-get-so-easily-offended/

 

 

:smilewink:

[Friedrich-4B]

A choice and a realistic load out menu is not asking for all combats to be at the same fuel state.

 

Right from the start Crumpp has been using prejudicial and judgmental terms such as:

 

In playing online there appears to be some "room for abuse"

 

unrealistic reduction in fuel capacity. To me, this is the aerial combat simulator version of the first person shooter jumping around with his weapon on full auto.

 

Gamey and a big turn off that destroys the fun.

 

It is gamey because it introduces a culture and thinking that is not present in the thing we are trying to simulate in a study sim.

 

all because some people choose to use less fuel; as already mentioned, such things happened in real life air-to-air combat. Crumpp should just get over it and stop labeling what other people choose to do with their DCS aircraft as being "abuse", "gamey" or whatever.

 

All of DCS is a game. People enjoy that game differently.

 

Exactly, Crumpp should take his own advice...:music_whistling:

Edited December 4, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B

[shadepiece]

I have read this thread in it's entirety. I have to say that II think the fuel slider is just fine. I think there are more than enough tools in the mission editor that would allow a creator the ability to make missions long, and far enough to require the full use of all the fuel tanks. A mission that would require us to fly for an hour before we got anywhere, or did anything, would not be for me. Much like Echo, and OP I like the current missions. Missions in which I can get turned up in a fight shortly after joining the server. I do not perceive the ability for the virtual pilot (which we are) to make choices that a real life pilot might not as a bad thing, or something that is less hardcore simulation wise. The argument could be made that it isn't necessary historically accurate in the sense that these are not historically accurate situations, or missions, but the FM and how the aircraft perform in these varying states are incredibly accurate. So the notion that we are fans of a "gamey" simulation is ludicrous in my mind. Just because I don't necessarily want to fly perfect historical missions, or want to conform to every minor detail in regards to how my virtual aircraft is set up does not mean I want a "gamey" simulation. Although, I do think that allowing a mission creator to enforce a historical fuel loadout is not too much to ask for.

That being said, I also think there are some pretty severe double standards here. I remember when Crumpp was on my thread fighting tooth and nail against allowing us to be able to alter our own gun convergence. I shouldn't see how this argument is any different in the way that both features were in fact "possible" in reality, so not like having infinite ammo, or unlimited fuel. Crumpp has said he sees no issues with there being a choice to enforce the historical fuel loadouts, while also allowing the fuel slider to exist on servers that are open about their settings. However, when it comes to something else in the game that might be something that the so-called "gamey" simmers would in fact like to have control over I seem to remember him thinking that that would be quite unreasonable. I bring that up to show that you cannot have the cake, and eat it too. You can't argue to allow players to have a choice in one situation, while maintaining that players shouldn't be allowed to in another. I think that mission creators could just as easily enforce historical fuel loads, and convergences just as easily as a mission creator would rather allow their players to experiment with different loadouts to get an edge. They way one enjoys the game is much different than another, and that is okay. As long as everyone is following the "study-sim rules" of keeping the options grounded in the relms of reality. If someone wants to go in with a crazy 200 yard, 30% fuel, adrenaline charged mission I think they absolutely should be able to, as long as he is on a server where everyone has the same opportunity. Just as much, someone who wants a painfully recreated historical mission should be able to fly that. There is nothing that says that this person is not the same person on different days in different moods.

 

 

Bottom line: I think that the real conversation should be that of allowing mission/server creators to have more power to create the intended flight experience that they have envisioned. Whether that is the hyper accurate historical kind, or the equally as realistic, if not historically accurate, experimental server which would allow virtual pilots to try things that may or may not have happened in reality even if those things were possible, and put them in a place where they could try those setups against other real humans, and not just AI.

*steps off soap box*

[Zeroskills]

The second someone calls a game mechanic they don't like an "exploit" is the second I stop taking anything they have to say seriously.

[Crumpp]

Shadepiece says:

 

That being said, I also think there are some pretty severe double standards here.

 

:huh:

 

The conversation I remember had nothing to do with game features and was about history. You seemed to think it was historically correct for every pilot to set their own convergence. It is was not.

 

The ammunition slider was decided way before I said anything about it, like in 2012. Maybe you did not realize that.

 

Yo-Yo says:

Generally the convergence is not a subject to change as it was in real world.

There were two patterns optimized for N-9 and then for K-14 gyro gunsight.

The optimization allows to have more or less equal bullets density at the most reasonable range of fire.

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1580693&postcount=3

[Crumpp]

Right from the start Crumpp has been using prejudicial and judgmental terms such as:

 

 

 

 

 

all because some people choose to use less fuel; as already mentioned, such things happened in real life air-to-air combat. Crumpp should just get over it and stop labeling what other people choose to do with their DCS aircraft as being "abuse", "gamey" or whatever.

 

 

 

Exactly, Crumpp should take his own advice...:music_whistling:

 

Why don't you put all of those in context of the conversation where I have to defend the right to choice from a few who want to be viewed taking 40% fuel as historical and a simulation.

[shadepiece]

:huh:

 

The conversation I remember had nothing to do with game features and was about history. You seemed to think it was historically correct for every pilot to set their own convergence. It is was not.

 

The ammunition slider was decided way before I said anything about it, like in 2012. Maybe you did not realize that.

 

 

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1580693&postcount=3

 

Although I think evidence was provided that in fact it was historically accurate for some pilots to change their convergences, I definitely remember you being competly against the addition of that feature in the game even though I, and a few others had said it would be something we would enjoy, and would in no way affect anyone else who did not choose to change their settings. I think the ammunition slider is just as viable as the fuel slider, and would also like to have the option of removing a gun from each wing, and carrying more ammunition as a result. I think all of these things would have they're own place in the sim while still being realistic.

[mjmorrow]

I say we tear down ED for even having a "sim" and "game" tab! The nerve of those guys!

 

How dare they divide the flight sim community!!

 

http://themillennialvoices.org/2015/02/22/when-did-we-get-so-easily-offended/

 

 

:smilewink:

 

I wasn't knocking ED in any way shape or form and I have nothing against having a game mode and sim mode. I did like what you wrote, though. Your comment made me imagine the angry flight sim villagers outside the ED castle, with torches and pitchforks. :megalol:

 

Ok, what I meant is that I would be against classifying Josh's use of fuel load outs as an arcade mode or game mode. From my point of view, Josh is an exceptional flight sim pilot, highly accomplished in our hobby, with years of simulated and real World flying experience. i don't think that relatively low fuel load outs explain his success as a sim pilot, that his years of experience, practice, and talent, explains his success.

 

I understand why he uses relatively lower fuel load outs. Even if I would tend to prefer a server operator to enforce some kind of fuel load out lock, and I do, I do not endorse the point of view that anyone doing otherwise is engaging in arcade mode or game mode game play. I could see how officially presenting Josh's load out approach as a kind of arcade or game mode would be potentially insulting, not only to Josh, but also to a number of competitive flight simmers using the same approach to fuel load out. I can understand why Josh and other competitive flight simmers would disagree with such a point of view. I feel that Josh and other competitive flight simmers, all flight simmers, should not be compelled, not in any way, to endorse the idea that low fuel load use is somehow a less prestigious approach to fuel load out, particularly during competitive multiplayer game play.

 

The two approaches to fuel load out can be introduced in a way such that it is not suggested that one is more prestigious than the other, done so without passing judgement on one approach or the other. Allowing for both approaches, while not passing judgement on the relative merits of one or the other, seems to be a great approach to me. That is how I see the matter. :thumbup: MJ

Edited December 4, 2015 by mjmorrow

[Crumpp]

Although I think evidence was provided that in fact it was historically accurate for some pilots to change their convergences, I definitely remember you being competly against the addition of that feature in the game even though I, and a few others had said it would be something we would enjoy, and would in no way affect anyone else who did not choose to change their settings. I think the ammunition slider is just as viable as the fuel slider, and would also like to have the option of removing a gun from each wing, and carrying more ammunition as a result. I think all of these things would have they're own place in the sim while still being realistic.

 

Ok, provide a link please. I couldn't find what you are talking about and I am pretty sure I did not go around raining on parades.

 

The conversation I found is about history not game features.

 

Is this the conversation you are talking about:

 

 

 

Crumpp says:

Welcome to DCS! I can see your confusion at my reply. To clarify, there should not be a slider that goes between 250 yards and 350 yards but players should have a choice between 250 yards OR 350 yards in the P-47 series.

 

Shadepiece says:

I knew you only meant one or the other referring to the distances, and that is exactly what I want. A few historical pre-sets to choose from. I.e. 250 yards OR 350 yards. I do NOT want a slider in between those two settings.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2488967&postcount=89

 

 

Am I missing something? :noexpression:

[Crumpp]

I wasn't knocking ED in any way shape or form and I have nothing against having a game mode and sim mode. I did like what you wrote, though. Your comment made me imagine the angry flight sim villagers outside the ED castle, with torches and pitchforks. :megalol:

 

Ok, what I meant is that I would be against classifying Josh's use of fuel load outs as an arcade mode or game mode. From my point of view, Josh is an exceptional flight sim pilot, highly accomplished in our hobby, with years of simulated and real World flying experience. i don't think that relatively low fuel load outs explain his success as a sim pilot, that his years of experience, practice, and talent, explains his success.

 

I understand why he uses relatively lower fuel load outs. Even if I would tend to prefer a server operator to enforce some kind of fuel load out lock, and I do, I do not endorse the point of view that anyone doing otherwise is engaging in arcade mode or game mode game play. I could see how officially presenting Josh's load out approach as a kind of arcade or game mode would be potentially insulting, not only to Josh, but also to a number of competitive flight simmers using the same approach to fuel load out. I can understand why Josh and other competitive flight simmers would disagree with such a point of view. I feel that Josh and other competitive flight simmers, all flight simmers, should not be compelled, not in any way, to endorse the idea that low fuel load use is somehow a less prestigious approach to fuel load out, particularly during competitive multiplayer game play.

 

The two approaches to fuel load out can be introduced in a way such that it is not suggested that one is more prestigious than the other, done so without passing judgement on one approach or the other. Allowing for both approaches, while not passing judgement on the relative merits of one or the other, seems to be a great approach to me. That is how I see the matter. :thumbup: MJ

 

Glad you got the humor!

 

What is a competitive flight simmer? Is it a sport or something? As a manager in the fast aluminum tubing business I have never heard it.

 

What do you want to call the two approaches? It is probably different from what the pilot and Aero Sciences education in me wants to call it! :smilewink:

[Friedrich-4B]

Why don't you put all of those in context of the conversation where I have to defend the right to choice from a few who want to be viewed taking 40% fuel as historical and a simulation.

 

Who exactly was Crumpp having to "defend" himself against, when he started this thread by complaining that those who don't follow the same "rules" as he does are abusing the game, jumping around like first-person shooters and destroying the fun of it for serious-minded folk such as himself?

 

...Net_Man was a gentleman and very nicely confessed to the practice of taking reduced fuel.

 

From this it would seem that Net_Man is one of those first person shooters who are abusing the game and destroying the fun of it...thus engendering this poll (even if he was a gentleman about it and confessed his guilt, like some poor first person sinner/gamer).

Edited December 4, 2015 by Friedrich-4/B

[Echo38]

with years of simulated and real World flying experience

 

I appreciate the kind words, MJ, but--a clarification: I only have about ten hours at the controls of real airplanes. Not my choice to have so few, of course; I'd have spent the rest of my life flying for real, if it were at all possible.

[shadepiece]

Ok, provide a link please. I couldn't find what you are talking about and I am pretty sure I did not go around raining on parades.

 

The conversation I found is about history not game features.

 

Is this the conversation you are talking about:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2488967&postcount=89

 

 

Am I missing something? :noexpression:

 

Well within the context of keeping it historically accurate a slider may not be appropriate. Although I much prefer to enter the information manually to include what vertical convergence I like all my guns to be set at, and that would be appropriate in another server perhaps. As I said before I do not think that the two kinds of experiences we are talking about are mutually exclusive. That one person could only be all about the historical accuracy, and not also like being able to see what these machines would have been capable of under different circumstances. I could enjoy an environment where we are held to such historical pre-sets and loadouts, while also enjoying time on a different server in which I can set up my plane the way I

want.

 

Not to mention the sentence I said right after that quote was "However, that said you can still alter to any distance via the .lua files if I have understood correctly, and if that is true, then there is only one difference between that and a slider." Additionally there were multiple people who seemed to be in support of the fact that it was in fact historically accurate for pilots to be able to change their convergence ranges, but you seemed to be pretty adamant that there could be no compromise, at least to me. Also, you talked about a "gamey" convergence slider in that post as well, which seems to follow suit in this thread. The notion that people who enjoy these things are somehow less "study-simmers" who would see DCS turned into an arcade game is preposterous. So again a server could exist were everything is completely by the book with all the historically correct presets, but just as well there could be a server that allowed you to alter your convergence, fuel loadout, weapon loadout, ect.

[Ripcord03]

I'm sorry but if he really wants to argue on the sake of historical accuracy and realism, then Respawns, and being able to get another aircraft immediately after dying or getting shot down is also not accurate and should be removed. same with 180 second repairs.

 

Also, we should then be forced to fly realistic distances and times to the combat area. But wait, I dont hear him complaining about that? It seems he only wants to change stuff that doesnt fit his "version" of the game and how it should be played according to him.

 

Frederich and OutOnTheOP have continuously proven him wrong on multiple threads, with his own evidence no less.

 

Who exactly was Crumpp having to "defend" himself against, when he started this thread by complaining that those who don't follow the same "rules" as he does are abusing the game, jumping around like first-person shooters and destroying the fun of it for serious-minded folk such as himself?

 

all because some people choose to use less fuel; as already mentioned, such things happened in real life air-to-air combat. Crumpp should just get over it and stop labeling what other people choose to do with their DCS aircraft as being "abuse", "gamey" or whatever.

 

Exactly, Crumpp should take his own advice...

 

Not trying to personally attack you crumpp, but the way you have been phrasing your arguement continues to insinuate that if we dont do it your way, then its wrong or "gamey" or "exploiting" something. And thats just not the case. I'm never against improving what DCS currently has, but claiming that adjusting fuel load to match the mission is an exploit simply isnt true. I'm always for historical accuracy, but you also have to look at the bigger picture, Realism vs Fun Factor, sorry, but I dont have the time or energy to fly 3+ hours just to get to an Area of Operation in what is believe it or not a GAME, yes i said it, DCS is a GAME. If I wanted to sit around for 3+ hours doing nothing before seeing combat/doing anything, I would have stayed in the army.

 

Conversely, could the fuel system be improved, or altered to accommodate the more Realism Dedicated folks, yes, and im all for it, but i think ED has bigger things to worry about than the fuel slider, Like patching the memory leaks, getting the Spitfire ready for release, getting 2.0 ready for a full release etc. To me, this is nothing more than a drop in the water compared to the bigger issues that need fixed.

 

 

I apologize if anything i said is taken as a personal attack, its not meant to be, but it seems all the WWII threads seem to go the same route anymore, arguing over changing something that isn't broken when there are bigger issues that need to be fixed. Plus I would like to see a 1944 Europe/Normandy Map at some point in my lifetime lol.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Davison

[Crumpp]

Well within the context of keeping it historically accurate a slider may not be appropriate. Although I much prefer to enter the information manually to include what vertical convergence I like all my guns to be set at, and that would be appropriate in another server perhaps. As I said before I do not think that the two kinds of experiences we are talking about are mutually exclusive. That one person could only be all about the historical accuracy, and not also like being able to see what these machines would have been capable of under different circumstances. I could enjoy an environment where we are held to such historical pre-sets and loadouts, while also enjoying time on a different server in which I can set up my plane the way I

want.

 

Not to mention the sentence I said right after that quote was "However, that said you can still alter to any distance via the .lua files if I have understood correctly, and if that is true, then there is only one difference between that and a slider." Additionally there were multiple people who seemed to be in support of the fact that it was in fact historically accurate for pilots to be able to change their convergence ranges, but you seemed to be pretty adamant that there could be no compromise, at least to me. Also, you talked about a "gamey" convergence slider in that post as well, which seems to follow suit in this thread. The notion that people who enjoy these things are somehow less "study-simmers" who would see DCS turned into an arcade game is preposterous. So again a server could exist were everything is completely by the book with all the historically correct presets, but just as well there could be a server that allowed you to alter your convergence, fuel loadout, weapon loadout, ect.

 

No, lets get back to your earlier post were I am the guy raining all over your parade.

 

All these things such as "The notion that people who enjoy these things are somehow less "study-simmers" blah,blah, blah.....

 

Are your own creations. Stop attributing this to me, please.

 

I never said a thing about it.

 

From my first post

 

Crumpp says:

What I would like to see if players having choice.

[Crumpp]

Frederich and OutOnTheOP have continuously proven him wrong on multiple threads, with his own evidence no less.

 

No they have not. I am sorry some you do not understand but really, their arguments have been "not in keeping with aeronautical science" let's politely say.

[OutOnTheOP]

Why don't you put all of those in context of the conversation where I have to defend the right to choice from a few who want to be viewed taking 40% fuel as historical and a simulation.

 

Please load the mission editor, put in a FW190, and note how many pounds of fuel the FW190 has at 100%.

 

Then add a P-51D and move the slider until it is at the same fuel weight. Note what percentage the P-51D is at to have the same fuel weight.

 

Then please try to tell us that carrying the same fuel weight is unfair.

[Solty]

Crump you want people to have a choice via limiting their choices to those that fit your agenda. That is not freedom.

 

You are segregating people by saying something that is very good system is gamey to you. Somehow your reasoning came into a circle.

 

People have ability to choose their fuel and ammo stats, so let's give them choice not to have any more choice in this matter. Who are you? A politician?! :P

[gavagai]

I'm sorry but if he really wants to argue on the sake of historical accuracy and realism, then Respawns, and being able to get another aircraft immediately after dying or getting shot down is also not accurate and should be removed. same with 180 second repairs.

 

Pseudo-argument. That line of reasoning shows up in every flight sim thread about "realism" that makes it past 10 pages.

 

Neither side of the discussion is compelled to adopt a ridiculous chain of conclusions (that would ruin the game) just because someone else thinks he is wrong about one thing.

Edited December 4, 2015 by gavagai

[Cripple]

I go away for a cuppa, a snack, and a snooze... and the thread hits 15 pages!

 

I'm not keen to bother scrolling back, as it now seems to be two camps refuting the (erroneous) claims the other side has made.

 

My position still stands. ED stated in their last newsletter, "We are committed to creating the most authentic recreation of World War II air combat ever done". Ergo, I am pro a tank-based fuelling model.

 

Do we have any evidence that anyone in WW2 *deliberately* flew with their internal tankage half or quarter-filled to improve performance? If so, I may modify my position.

 

I am *not* suggesting that fighters must carry filled drop tanks if they can carry them - that would be a pilot's choice. The choice would be between which tanks to fill, and whether they are full or empty. Click, click, click.

 

Furthermore, I am not seeing a problem with this... unless there is some blantantly un-historic and meta-gamey exploit that people want to cling to. Hell, if a pilot is as hot-shot as he claims to be, will it really make that much difference?

[NineLine]

So this thread is still a thing?