replace request repair with request new plane

[upyr1]

It would take a lot longer than 3 minutes to fix a plane, but they could roll out a new plane 

[=475FG= Dawger]

A new plane would require that the plane exist in the warehouse where you are at.

If this is the case, there should be a slot for that new aircraft and you should just occupy that slot. If there are no aircraft in the warehouse where you are requesting one, repair should be your only option.

The only scenario where this makes sense is when the  mission designer places aircraft in the warehouse but does not provide slots to utilize them. I am not sure why a mission designer would choose to do that.

[upyr1]

8 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

A new plane would require that the plane exist in the warehouse where you are at.

If this is the case, there should be a slot for that new aircraft and you should just occupy that slot. If there are no aircraft in the warehouse where you are requesting one, repair should be your only option.

The only scenario where this makes sense is when the  mission designer places aircraft in the warehouse but does not provide slots to utilize them. I am not sure why a mission designer would choose to do that.

Why not tie the extra plane into the base supply menu? Right now the default is unlimited planes, which is about as realistic as a the current magic repair, but if you set the limit to let's say 24 planes aircraft then running out of supplies would be a way to lose a mission.

 

[Northstar98]

Personally, I kinda agree, and IMO it's fairly redundant when you can usually just spawn in a new aircraft.

Just leave it up to mission editor to determine how much of whatever is present at whatever aerodrome, exactly how it is now.

I don't think that repairs should be gotten rid of completely though, but they're probably more applicable to a dynamic, persistent campaign, spanning a large amount of time. There probably should however be an override option, allowing mission editors to determine the rate at which aircraft get repaired.

How many aircraft present in the warehouse could be made to have a significant effect, and if limited, should incentivise players into being wary of how much gets used, and opens the door to missions where logistics has more focus.

A logistics overhaul is probably desireable in such a case though.

 

18 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

A new plane would require that the plane exist in the warehouse where you are at.

Which, by default, is always going to be the case, as the default warehouse state is unlimited of everything; you can respawn in a brand new aircraft, fully fuel it and arm it with whatever weapon, as many times as you like.

A mission editor would have to purposefully change the warehouse settings to have it differently and they have the ability to set how many aircraft, weapons there are, of whatever types and how much fuel is available.

18 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

If this is the case, there should be a slot for that new aircraft and you should just occupy that slot. If there are no aircraft in the warehouse where you are requesting one, repair should be your only option.

I'm not seeing the problem here, so long as the crash auto-recovery option is checked, you can use the 'Get new plane - respawn' command to respawn without needing to change slot or have a free slot available.

And the amount of aircraft present in the mission at whatever aerodrome is up to the mission editor, especially now that you can spawn client/player aircraft from anywhere so long as the area has a low enough gradient and isn't in the water.

18 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The only scenario where this makes sense is when the  mission designer places aircraft in the warehouse but does not provide slots to utilize them. I am not sure why a mission designer would choose to do that.

DCS does this by default - limited number of slots, unlimited number of aircraft, weapons and amount of fuel.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Northstar98

[Schmidtfire]

The repair could be more fun if it was tied to the damage model. Seeing what individual parts and system was damaged during the flight etc.

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

The repair could be more fun if it was tied to the damage model. Seeing what individual parts and system was damaged during the flight etc.

True, and the time to repair should be influenced by what components are damaged.

Right now though, it's kinda redundant when in probably the majority of cases, you can just respawn in a new aircraft.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I don't think that repairs should be gotten rid of completely though, but they're probably more applicable to dynamic, persistent campaigns spanning a large amount of time. There probably should however be an override option, allowing mission editors to determine the rate at which aircraft get repaired.

I agree this needs to be a dynamic campaign feature 

[cfrag]

11 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

The repair could be more fun if it was tied to the damage model

This comment intrigues me from a playability standpoint. I love to design missions, and aspects like this can help me design more fun missions. What I'm trying to understand is what the fun aspect is with this (what makes it fun) and how it could be implemented (how this would feel from a player's perspective). Please allow me to explain:

I'm currently experimenting with repercussions for loss of pilots and airframes in multiplayer missions. Some ideas work well, others flopped badly with my players (we are talking small-group, short (2-3 hours) coop missions here, no big servers / campaign)

• At first, I experimented with blocking pilots who were shot down and successfully ejected. They (the player) were blocked from re-slotting until a CSAR (player or AI) rescued them. BIG fail, as people don't like waiting around for 30 minutes until they are picked up (and a big personal defeat because that was some of the best code I ever wrote  )
• Then I limited the number of player-pilots that can be lost during a mission, with the ability to rescue ejected player pilots via CSAR and refill the pilot pool. People like that a lot, as it balances the risk/reward for player CSAR missions towards the end of the mission, when the pilot pool is becoming shallow (it also requires players who can fly choppers well enough to survive a battlefield rescue, so be careful when you add that feature to a mission)
• Now I'm experiencing with limited respawn-ability: if a player plane is destroyed, its (plane) slot is blocked (no repair) for the remainder of the mission. But if you somehow return a smoldering wreck to your chief that just barely made it back, no repercussions, and you get a sparklingly new plane in no time. My players love this because it forces them to keep in mind that they must return an airframe safely to a base, and thus they become more risk-averse (my Hog drivers suddenly prefer standoff mavs over the Avenger gun). I don't know how they would react to longer delays, and I'll probably have to change mission design, but I feel we are onto something here.

So how could a repair feature tied to damage work in-game? I'm interpreting it as a variable repair time, based on how badly you dinged up your plane. I'm not sure if you suggest that players should actually wait in-cockpit for 15 minutes for a repair (that won't work with the players I know - they hate waiting for *anything*: "Dear god, give me patience - right NOW!"). Blocking the slot for some time while allowing players to choose a different slot until the repair timer runs down (even if it's a second plane of the same type) may be a great addition. (I'm not sure how I could prevent players from simply taking the 3 minute repair hit instead, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it)

So, how could, in your mind, such a feature ideally look in-game? You RTB in a smoking, leaking Bug, with most of the left wing missing, make a god-like miraculous landing and just barely roll off the runway; your Chief glares at you with barely contained fury over you mishandling her favorite, beautiful plane: now what? How would you envision options and repercussions for near-totaling your plane would look in-game? Besides not getting beaten into pulp by your chief, of course  

 

[upyr1]

15 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

The repair could be more fun if it was tied to the damage model. Seeing what individual parts and system was damaged during the flight etc.

That would be a good idea, if the repairs are done behind the scenes as part of a dynamic campaign.  Then they could be done in a realistic amount of time. So something lightly damage might be available in an hour or so while something that is too badly damaged is a writeoff.

[mkellytx]

Alright, take this for what it is, as former aircrew and maintenance officer I like the idea of stepping to a spare.  Since this is a wish list thread, the addition of when to decide to stick with your jet or step to the spare adds some real life SA for a virtual aircrew.  Unfortunately, just about any battle damage can't be fixed quickly.  Heck, a lot of battle damage repair requires an ABDR team from a depot, so anything needing that would take a bit of time.  Red ball maintenance on the other hand would be very real world, typically that will involve some avionics box/part not working and troubleshooting a cause and getting a tech to the jet to swap, or clean an cannon plug.  At some point along the way the decision must be made when to stick with a repair or step to the spare.  That also must take into account what other lines are out there, your priority relative to theirs, how hard you're broke, how is the spare configured and if you can meet your mission time.

Where this really could get interesting is with DC.  If your jet is shot up then it's out of action min 12-24 hours and you have to step to the spare, but use of the spare removes it's availability for other lines to use.  So, most through flight inspections take longer than we'd be willing to sit in a cockpit waiting, so that's probably not a good option.  Hot pit refuel/rearm could take 15-45 min depending on jet/configuration, or a Swedish quick turn which should take 30-30 min max.  Those cases would lend themselves nicely to red balls and force some timely decisions.

The fun new bit of realism with DC is that you'd have to manage your jets and lines pretty well to meet the ATO.  Typically when we flew normal sustained operations we flew four turn three or two (4x3 or 4x2) on a 12 PAA aircraft squadron (so, 12+1 back home, 12 deployed).  Surge ops were more like 8x6 or 8x4, but after a couple of days of that all the jets break, so you burn through your spare parts and maintainers pretty quick.  This would be a whole new ball game to worry about logistics, the health of the jets and the ability to sustainably meet an ATO.  It would also force some discipline on how many configurations a given squadron uses, since each config requires its own spare.

Anyhow, some rambling about the aircraft maintenance side of things that kept the jets ready and in the air.

[Callsign112]

On 3/5/2022 at 7:13 AM, cfrag said:

This comment intrigues me from a playability standpoint. I love to design missions, and aspects like this can help me design more fun missions. What I'm trying to understand is what the fun aspect is with this (what makes it fun) and how it could be implemented (how this would feel from a player's perspective). Please allow me to explain:

I'm currently experimenting with repercussions for loss of pilots and airframes in multiplayer missions. Some ideas work well, others flopped badly with my players (we are talking small-group, short (2-3 hours) coop missions here, no big servers / campaign)

• At first, I experimented with blocking pilots who were shot down and successfully ejected. They (the player) were blocked from re-slotting until a CSAR (player or AI) rescued them. BIG fail, as people don't like waiting around for 30 minutes until they are picked up (and a big personal defeat because that was some of the best code I ever wrote  )
• Then I limited the number of player-pilots that can be lost during a mission, with the ability to rescue ejected player pilots via CSAR and refill the pilot pool. People like that a lot, as it balances the risk/reward for player CSAR missions towards the end of the mission, when the pilot pool is becoming shallow (it also requires players who can fly choppers well enough to survive a battlefield rescue, so be careful when you add that feature to a mission)
• Now I'm experiencing with limited respawn-ability: if a player plane is destroyed, its (plane) slot is blocked (no repair) for the remainder of the mission. But if you somehow return a smoldering wreck to your chief that just barely made it back, no repercussions, and you get a sparklingly new plane in no time. My players love this because it forces them to keep in mind that they must return an airframe safely to a base, and thus they become more risk-averse (my Hog drivers suddenly prefer standoff mavs over the Avenger gun). I don't know how they would react to longer delays, and I'll probably have to change mission design, but I feel we are onto something here.

So how could a repair feature tied to damage work in-game? I'm interpreting it as a variable repair time, based on how badly you dinged up your plane. I'm not sure if you suggest that players should actually wait in-cockpit for 15 minutes for a repair (that won't work with the players I know - they hate waiting for *anything*: "Dear god, give me patience - right NOW!"). Blocking the slot for some time while allowing players to choose a different slot until the repair timer runs down (even if it's a second plane of the same type) may be a great addition. (I'm not sure how I could prevent players from simply taking the 3 minute repair hit instead, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it)

So, how could, in your mind, such a feature ideally look in-game? You RTB in a smoking, leaking Bug, with most of the left wing missing, make a god-like miraculous landing and just barely roll off the runway; your Chief glares at you with barely contained fury over you mishandling her favorite, beautiful plane: now what? How would you envision options and repercussions for near-totaling your plane would look in-game? Besides not getting beaten into pulp by your chief, of course  

 

 

7 hours ago, mkellytx said:

Alright, take this for what it is, as former aircrew and maintenance officer I like the idea of stepping to a spare.  Since this is a wish list thread, the addition of when to decide to stick with your jet or step to the spare adds some real life SA for a virtual aircrew.  Unfortunately, just about any battle damage can't be fixed quickly.  Heck, a lot of battle damage repair requires an ABDR team from a depot, so anything needing that would take a bit of time.  Red ball maintenance on the other hand would be very real world, typically that will involve some avionics box/part not working and troubleshooting a cause and getting a tech to the jet to swap, or clean an cannon plug.  At some point along the way the decision must be made when to stick with a repair or step to the spare.  That also must take into account what other lines are out there, your priority relative to theirs, how hard you're broke, how is the spare configured and if you can meet your mission time.

Where this really could get interesting is with DC.  If your jet is shot up then it's out of action min 12-24 hours and you have to step to the spare, but use of the spare removes it's availability for other lines to use.  So, most through flight inspections take longer than we'd be willing to sit in a cockpit waiting, so that's probably not a good option.  Hot pit refuel/rearm could take 15-45 min depending on jet/configuration, or a Swedish quick turn which should take 30-30 min max.  Those cases would lend themselves nicely to red balls and force some timely decisions.

The fun new bit of realism with DC is that you'd have to manage your jets and lines pretty well to meet the ATO.  Typically when we flew normal sustained operations we flew four turn three or two (4x3 or 4x2) on a 12 PAA aircraft squadron (so, 12+1 back home, 12 deployed).  Surge ops were more like 8x6 or 8x4, but after a couple of days of that all the jets break, so you burn through your spare parts and maintainers pretty quick.  This would be a whole new ball game to worry about logistics, the health of the jets and the ability to sustainably meet an ATO.  It would also force some discipline on how many configurations a given squadron uses, since each config requires its own spare.

Anyhow, some rambling about the aircraft maintenance side of things that kept the jets ready and in the air.

A lot of really good insight/questions.

For me at least, the OP's suggestion is a really good one. Just from the standpoint of a game mechanic alone, requesting a new plane would be more realistic than the current magic repair. It doesn't change anything, it just makes the scenario your playing the SIM in more believable. After all, it is still a computer simulation meant for enjoyment. Not many would find waiting for repairs in real time very enjoyable.

But you guys raise some really good points that could be considered as ways to add more immersion to the SIM, especially for MP scenarios.

[upyr1]

2 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

A lot of really good insight/questions.

For me at least, the OP's suggestion is a really good one. Just from the standpoint of a game mechanic alone, requesting a new plane would be more realistic than the current magic repair. It doesn't change anything, it just makes the scenario your playing the SIM in more believable. After all, it is still a computer simulation meant for enjoyment. Not many would find waiting for repairs in real time very enjoyable.

But you guys raise some really good points that could be considered as ways to add more immersion to the SIM, especially for MP scenarios.

I've never liked the request repair mechanic, it is just too arcadish. I would be happy if they they simply changed the dialogue kept the animation the same.  

[Tank50us]

On 3/6/2022 at 9:52 AM, upyr1 said:

I've never liked the request repair mechanic, it is just too arcadish. I would be happy if they they simply changed the dialogue kept the animation the same.  

Arcadish, yes, but remember that it's just as arcady for how fast our jets are rearmed. IRL, the rearming process would take about 30min to an hour, and most aircraft would have to be fully shut down to rearm anyway (since engines and ground crew don't mix). But, some concessions have to be made for fun, so I am ok with this. However it'd be nice to have better visual representations of these things happening than what we currently have (plane being lifted into the air magically for repair, ordinance magically appearing on pylons for rearming, and fuel magically going into your aircraft for refueling).

[upyr1]

9 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Arcadish, yes, but remember that it's just as arcady for how fast our jets are rearmed. IRL, the rearming process would take about 30min to an hour, and most aircraft would have to be fully shut down to rearm anyway (since engines and ground crew don't mix). But, some concessions have to be made for fun, so I am ok with this. However it'd be nice to have better visual representations of these things happening than what we currently have (plane being lifted into the air magically for repair, ordinance magically appearing on pylons for rearming, and fuel magically going into your aircraft for refueling).

True some concessions need to be made but at the same time when you can give lip service to realism in other areas it works better

[Northstar98]

13 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Arcadish, yes, but remember that it's just as arcady for how fast our jets are rearmed. IRL, the rearming process would take about 30min to an hour, and most aircraft would have to be fully shut down to rearm anyway (since engines and ground crew don't mix).

Meh, things like integrated combat turns and hot refuelling are definitely a thing, though our current system is probably faster than the real thing - suffice to say though, our current time to rearm and refuel is closer to reality than the repairs.

Worse is that the repairs are essentially redundant in DCS, when you very likely could just spawn in a new aircraft.

And even so, merely x being unrealistic isn't really an argument for keeping y unrealistic, and preferably these things should be under the control of mission editors (perhaps with something like a user defined modifier for adjusting the rate at which individual units/stores are rearmed, refuelled and repaired).

Edited March 8, 2022 by Northstar98