Faster Rearming Speed

[Gault05]

I would like to point out that I believe it would be more better if we had the ground crew spend less time going through ALL the weapon stations on a nearly or already armed fighter/striker. Just change/rearm the weapons on the desired or empty pylons and wachow! Ready to go!:thumbup:

[probad]

i think they already spend less time rearming the whole plane in dcs than they do rearming a single station irl

[mkiii]

Yes, true. I don't think you would enjoy waiting 40+ minutes for the Turnround. Even untouched weapons & aircraft have to be made safe before anything is changed, and you don't usually put things that go bang on while a large tanker full of fuel is sitting next to you, or the grease monkeys or pilot are poking around and pressing buttons & switches in the cockpit.

 

Even loading the gun(s) isn't like loading a magazine into a rifle.

 

Wouldn't it be better if It did take an hour, and you had to miss the action as you would irl? Might it not encourage different tactics, esp. if you are multiplayer. Single player, not so much, since you can skip time.

 

Just for General Information, here is a publication for UK Air Training Corps Cadets, explaining Aircraft handling. If you haven't done any IRL, it shows you what is involved. http://www.aircadetonline.com/flash_site/assets/pdf_files/acp34_volume_3_air_hand.pdf

Edited July 8, 2017 by mkiii

[MikeMikeJuliet]

This might be something that could be a part of a server/level setup. The mission maker could decide how long repairs, rearms and refuelings would take to suite the style of gameplay that the mission maker is after.

 

Also, it would be an interesting possibility to keep aircraft slots unavailable as the aircraft is maintained. This would remove an easy cheat around the long rearm/refuel/repair times by forcing a player to either wait or to take another slot to play. And in longer missions/campaigns this would allow for an additional layer of depth into the missions, as the use of aircraft has to be considered wholly to keep the intensity of sorties high.

 

 

just a thought.

 

Regards,

MikeMikeJuliet

[probad]

This might be something that could be a part of a server/level setup. The mission maker could decide how long repairs, rearms and refuelings would take to suite the style of gameplay that the mission maker is after.

 

Also, it would be an interesting possibility to keep aircraft slots unavailable as the aircraft is maintained. This would remove an easy cheat around the long rearm/refuel/repair times by forcing a player to either wait or to take another slot to play. And in longer missions/campaigns this would allow for an additional layer of depth into the missions, as the use of aircraft has to be considered wholly to keep the intensity of sorties high.

i like it, although i can't imagine it being very popular in publics because server owners try to shy away from anything that encourages players to leave for other servers, so there's always a kind of a race to the bottom in terms of accessibility.

Edited July 8, 2017 by probad

[mvsgas]

I think it should be optional and up to the mission creator and server.

Now, every aircraft is different and some can be refueled and re armed in minutes with engine running while others can't.

Also, some Air Forces do it and other don't.

You can look for Integrated Combat Turns/Turnaround (ICT), Quick Turns, Hot pits and hot loads and you should find several videos.

[Frederf]

1. A rearming process which only changes the objects which are different.

 

2. The total time taken to rearm.

 

Much is said about 2. Little is said about 1.

 

The benefits to 1 include: Being able to change a missile without changing another item like a fuel tank or other weapon which might have an interesting state (broken, prepared, half depleted, calibrated, powered, hot, cooled, etc.) There is more to an item on a station than simply present/not present.

 

Being able to selectively change one item without disrupting others has a built-in value that's difficult to explain. There are a million different examples where treating items separately is superior than not being able to.

 

On the other hand this newfound ability to be specific means surely more bugs, confusion, and odd cases. What about paired items where one is changed but the other is not? Are the avionics prepared to handle individual items being changed? Is the fuel code smart enough to realistically handle one external tank fuller than the other?

 

Rearming being enforced a "fresh start" is possibly something programmers have leaned on to limit the possibilities and that being able to selectively change/not-change items would expose weaknesses in that implementation.

[MikeMikeJuliet]

i like it, although i can't imagine it being very popular in publics because server owners try to shy away from anything that encourages players to leave for other servers, so there's always a kind of a race to the bottom in terms of accessibility.

 

Which is why it should be optional to have such a system on your server/map. I bet this might be something event builders would like to have (i.e. red flag, blue flag and others)

 

1. A rearming process which only changes the objects which are different.

 

2. The total time taken to rearm.

 

Much is said about 2. Little is said about 1.

 

The benefits to 1 include: Being able to change a missile without changing another item like a fuel tank or other weapon which might have an interesting state (broken, prepared, half depleted, calibrated, powered, hot, cooled, etc.) There is more to an item on a station than simply present/not present.

 

Being able to selectively change one item without disrupting others has a built-in value that's difficult to explain. There are a million different examples where treating items separately is superior than not being able to.

 

On the other hand this newfound ability to be specific means surely more bugs, confusion, and odd cases. What about paired items where one is changed but the other is not? Are the avionics prepared to handle individual items being changed? Is the fuel code smart enough to realistically handle one external tank fuller than the other?

 

Rearming being enforced a "fresh start" is possibly something programmers have leaned on to limit the possibilities and that being able to selectively change/not-change items would expose weaknesses in that implementation.

 

Fair points.

[Northstar98]

Personally DCS is for realism. The loading times should match the time to change the actual pylon as best as possible.

 

That being said I agree that there should be a limit, so weren't waiting for ages waiting forever to load an aircraft, a situation like this would be desirable

[between 1:05 to 2:30]

 

Ultimately this should be something that a mission editor should be in control of. I mean, DCS is a sandbox right?

Edited July 11, 2017 by Northstar98

[terminator363]

I think it's fair the way it is. I do agree that empty pylons should be skipped but that's just knit picking