Please decrease / remove repair wait time

[v2tec]

I'd like to repair my aircraft when it is damaged, but first I have to shut down all engines and then wait another 150 seconds until it is repaired and then again, restart the aircraft.

Why must we wait 150 seconds? I takes enought time to shut off everything and restart. I am faster with selecting another slot instead of waiting for the repair.

Would be great, if we could remove / extremly reduce this wait time.

[cfrag]

4 hours ago, v2tec said:

Would be great, if we could remove / extremly reduce this wait time.

Agreed. I would love to have this become a setting in Mission Editor: Instant Repair checkbox. It's completely unrealistic anyway (3 minutes or 3 seconds or instant), so let the mission designer decide if they want this arbitrary element of annoyance.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 1/12/2025 at 11:08 AM, cfrag said:

arbitrary element of annoyance

Perhaps it is that, but think for a moment the kind of behaviour such measures would induce on the playerbase, especially in multiplayer.
Wouldn't you rather see that people fly around with a feeling of responsibility for their aircraft and their own virtual wellbeing? I think there should be MORE incentives for people to behave responsibly in their aircraft, not fewer.
This is a flight simulator after all, not Unreal Tournament where you drink a health potion and can jump back into the melee again 

[cfrag]

35 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

I think there should be MORE incentives for people to behave responsibly in their aircraft, not fewer.

Perhaps. Fact is that in my experience it has been shown that trying to force people to do something (e.g. enforcing no runway take-off etc.) leads to smaller groups and a less popular mission/server. Trying to impose one's will on other people seldom works in favorable ways.

35 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

hink for a moment the kind of behaviour such measures would induce on the playerbase, especially in multiplayer.

Agreed. Given the alternative instant respawn through re-slotting, I don't think it's going to make a big difference. With instant repair people may take the effort and try to RTB and land. In many of my missions I try to incentivize the latter by awarding points for kills etc. only after landing back at base. People then still re-spawn to skip repair, rearm and refuel time. Most people that I know are on the clock when they play DCS: they have kids, partners, elderly relatives, and a job. They feel that they can't be bothered to waste 5 minutes of their quality time on waiting for an arbitrary silly time.

35 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

This is a flight simulator after all, not Unreal Tournament where you drink a health potion and can jump back into the melee again

DCS is UT with an optional 5-10 minute break after downing the potion, there is nothing realistic in DCS in this regard either. If your plane gets dinged up, it's in for a couple of months in the shop. Even if not, after you land, you are in for a multi-hour debrief, some more debrief with the intelligence dudes, some sleep, and at least a day of prep for the next sortie. There is no way that you'd take off 10 minutes after landing a smoking husk of a plane, that's pure arcade gaming, so we may as well concede that.

Edited January 13 by cfrag

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

Perhaps. Fact is that in my experience it has been shown that trying to force people to do something (e.g. enforcing no runway take-off etc.) leads to smaller groups and a less popular mission/server. Trying to impose one's will on other people seldom works in favorable ways.

I do notice that all of the popular servers in this game tend to have more rules than not. Perhaps people do want some sort of structure in the game or a filter to keep noobish gameplay at a minimum. 

The repair feature seems to make sense only in the context of a dynamic war type game that tracks resources, airframes fuel etc. otherwise it doesn’t serve much purpose. If the wait time actually has a function in the scenario then maybe players won’t mind it. 

Edited January 13 by SharpeXB

[Thamiel]

1 hour ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Perhaps it is that, but think for a moment the kind of behaviour such measures would induce on the playerbase, especially in multiplayer.

As Startup, TO and approaching EP ist much more faster than egressing, performing an uncertain landing, repairing and then TO and flying back to where the fun is, I can tell what behaviour the current setting induces on MP servers.

[statrekmike]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

DCS is UT with an optional 5-10 minute break after downing the potion, there is nothing realistic in DCS in this regard either. If your plane gets dinged up, it's in for a couple of months in the shop. Even if not, after you land, you are in for a multi-hour debrief, some more debrief with the intelligence dudes, some sleep, and at least a day of prep for the next sortie. There is no way that you'd take off 10 minutes after landing a smoking husk of a plane, that's pure arcade gaming, so we may as well concede that.

You are jumping to an absurd extreme that is outside the obvious scope of the sim to support your argument. Don't get me wrong. I do think the mission maker or the server host should have control over the repair time but at the same time, I think it is pretty obvious that DCS is really all about the "in-cockpit" experience and doesn't need to account for real-world aircraft turn-around and repair times. Granted. It would be interesting to let players get a bit closer to the real-life turnaround time of some aircraft (like the A-10 for example) as a way to make players more carefully think about their loadouts and how they use them but that would depend greatly on the intent of the scenario and the server involved.

 To be honest. I am kinda surprised that certain parts of the DCS community haven't yet grasped that DCS as a platform isn't exactly suited for fast paced public server "air quake" action gameplay. It "kinda" works but it is like trying to hammer a square peg into a circular hole.

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

I am kinda surprised that certain parts of the DCS community haven't yet grasped that DCS as a platform isn't exactly suited for fast paced public server "air quake" action gameplay.

It’s certainly possible to create an air-start instant action mission in DCS. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a server run scenarios like this though. I don’t get the impression that this style of gameplay appeals to very many players here. 

49 minutes ago, Thamiel said:

As Startup, TO and approaching EP ist much more faster than egressing, performing an uncertain landing, repairing and then TO and flying back to where the fun is, I can tell what behaviour the current setting induces on MP servers.

Withholding the score until the player lands pretty well solves that problem. That and some servers will ban you for de-slotting during combat. 

[cfrag]

3 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

You are jumping to an absurd extreme that is outside the obvious scope of the sim to support your argument.

Aplologies for being unclear. What I meant to say is that a 3 minute wait before repairs commence appears arbitrary to me and IMHO serves no discernible purpose. For that reason I (as a mission designer) would like some control over this to eliminate it altogether. I see no added gaming value in those three minutes over any other, arbitrary, value.

7 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

I am kinda surprised that certain parts of the DCS community haven't yet grasped that DCS as a platform isn't exactly suited for fast paced public server "air quake" action gameplay.

To me, a game is what you, the player, make of it. DCS's online segment is (IIRC) around 10-12% of the entire user base, and there are many disparate gaming styles in that community. To me, there is exactly one way to play DCS correctly: when you have fun. Some people like one play style, others prefer another. And IMHO all are valid - as long as you don't have fun at the expense of others, e.g. as a Griefer (who should eternally rot in a deep, dank dungeon). When I create a mission, I strive to make it fun so that as many people as possible enjoy it. I don't control what other people like, and when people tell me that they like to try a certain aspect in a new mission, I'll try to accommodate. Over time, successful patterns emerge - for example the "Foothold/Pretense" style of content seems a good, successful formula. So if people enjoy what you call "air quake", let them have fun. If you don't like that style, simply look for a different server that serves up a mission that better suits your playstyle. Neither is better, you merely prefer one.

[statrekmike]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s certainly possible to create an air-start instant action mission in DCS. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a server run scenarios like this though. I don’t get the impression that this style of gameplay appeals to very many players here. 

 

 

1 minute ago, cfrag said:

To me, a game is what you, the player, make of it. DCS's online segment is (IIRC) around 10-12% of the entire user base, and there are many disparate gaming styles in that community. To me, there is exactly one way to play DCS correctly: when you have fun. Some people like one play style, others prefer another. And IMHO all are valid - as long as you don't have fun at the expense of others, e.g. as a Griefer (who should eternally rot in a deep, dank dungeon). When I create a mission, I strive to make it fun so that as many people as possible enjoy it. I don't control what other people like, and when people tell me that they like to try a certain aspect in a new mission, I'll try to accommodate. Over time, successful patterns emerge - for example the "Foothold/Pretense" style of content seems a good, successful formula. So if people enjoy what you call "air quake", let them have fun. If you don't like that style, simply look for a different server that serves up a mission that better suits your playstyle. Neither is better, you merely prefer one.

 

 My point isn't to make a personal value judgement on any one style of play. It is to point out that DCS as a platform is really geared towards more structured, smaller scale experiences. This is likely why the server list at any given time is pretty heavily dominated by locked/private servers for small groups. Obviously one can choose to play however they want but the further you get from that smaller, "single mission simulator" format, the more issues you will have and the more workarounds will be required.

[SharpeXB]

16 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

 

 

 

 My point isn't to make a personal value judgement on any one style of play. It is to point out that DCS as a platform is really geared towards more structured, smaller scale experiences. This is likely why the server list at any given time is pretty heavily dominated by locked/private servers for small groups. Obviously one can choose to play however they want but the further you get from that smaller, "single mission simulator" format, the more issues you will have and the more workarounds will be required.

Hmmm from what I see the most popular PVP server in this game is basically Air-Quake (Growling Sidewinder) Second in popularity are dynamic war types like Contention and Heatblur. Below that level are a bunch of thinly attended ones that likely aren’t worth playing on due to just the low numbers. 

Edited January 13 by SharpeXB

[statrekmike]

28 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Hmmm from what I see the most popular PVP server in this game is basically Air-Quake (Growling Sidewinder) Second in popularity are dynamic war types like Contention and Heatblur. Below that level are a bunch of thinly attended ones that likely aren’t worth playing on due to just the low numbers. 

 

  Popularity doesn't really factor into what I am saying. Just because something is popular doesn't mean that there are not some issues with implementing it with the platform by nature of that platform's basic foundational design.

 

  It is interesting. The popular public servers generally seem to attract the portion of the playerbase that is also quite active on the various forums. They spend a lot of time complaining about the limitations of the platform as it relates to the aforementioned public servers/scenarios they frequent. There is a reason for this. Without making any real judgements about how one chooses to play the game or one's priorities and personal biases, it is hard to not see how focused DCS World is on the "small scale single mission simulator" aspect and how uncomfortably it handles larger public PvP/PvE servers just by nature of its subject matter and basic design.

  The repair time thing is one tiny example of this (to a degree). For smaller co-op missions, the repair timer isn't likely to be encountered to any great degree since you are more likely to find "one and done" missions with a fixed beginning, middle, and end. When you land after doing whatever it is that you were doing, you are likely done with the mission entirely. In contrast, that repair timer becomes an issue when you are on a larger public server where things have to run for a long period of time and players are (if they don't get shot down and understand how to land with some degree of reliability) likely to make several trips and need rearming and repair. This process can't really be realistically timed for blatantly obvious reasons (nobody wants to wait at least thirty minutes for rearming/refueling and perhaps hours or days for repair in a flight simulation) so scenarios that require that will really highlight some of the realism weaknesses of the platform (and of consumer level combat flight simming in the most general sense). The more you configure a scenario for large scale public server consumption, the more resistance you are going to get from DCS as a platform in terms of design and functionality.

[SharpeXB]

16 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

it is hard to not see how focused DCS World is on the "small scale single mission simulator" aspect and how uncomfortably it handles larger public PvP/PvE servers just by nature of its subject matter and basic design.

I’m not quite sure what this means. I see many large complex scenarios being run online. And I’ll speculate that when the Dynamic Campaign comes along and that is usable online, it will be easier for more servers to run scenarios like that. Right now those are very difficult to create and manage. There’s nothing wrong with small missions either but I don’t see DCS as being more or less suited for that. It seems anything is possible. Back to the topic, the focus on bringing your aircraft back in one piece is clearly something that’s more relevant to an ongoing scenario that keeps track of such things. 

[statrekmike]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m not quite sure what this means. I see many large complex scenarios being run online.

This isn't really in dispute at all. I agree fully that these kinds of scenarios are commonplace online (especially in larger, more popular public servers for example) but the popularity and prevalence of these scenarios isn't really what I am talking about at all. I am talking about how well DCS as a platform handles those missions as it is right now and having spent a lot of time with the mission editor over the years, I have found that the larger and more complex you make a scenario, the more DCS (as a platform) struggles to meet the needs and expectations you might have.

 

  Perhaps a more straightforward way to put this is to say that as things are right now, DCS's various underlying design choices favor "more realistic" scenarios. Eagle Dynamics has certainly tried to offer some capacity for larger scenarios that are often seen on the more popular public servers but they (and third parties) put a lot of emphasis on realistic aircraft procedures and as that side of things gets more and more detailed (as it has), the harder it will be to fit those elements in a more "casual" multiplayer scenario experience without creating some kind of friction. The various aircraft modules and even the maps are just more suited for smaller scenarios focused around a single player controlled aircraft (or complimentary aircraft). Again. To be very clear, this isn't a value judgement. I don't have any problem with how others play DCS because I don't play on public servers as a rule anyway. What people do doesn't have any impact on me (at least not yet). All I am saying here is that there will always be friction between DCS's focus on realism/authenticity as a platform and the desires of those who want larger, more open multiplayer scenarios.

 

  Heck. I am pretty sure that this friction will only get more of a spotlight when the dynamic campaign setup comes along since a realistic dynamic campaign generated sortie will be very different from a viable dynamic campaign scenario for a public server. The players who want something that feels very "true to life" in terms of scenario design and structure have very different needs when compared to those who want a good large scale public server dynamic campaign.

[SharpeXB]

14 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

Perhaps a more straightforward way to put this is to say that as things are right now, DCS's various underlying design choices favor "more realistic" scenarios.

DCS can do any level of realism you like. It’s the players preferences that tend towards “more realistic”. For example there used to be a Game Mode and it would have totally been possible to create a Game Mode arcade action server. But clearly not enough people in this genre find that appealing. Indeed I can’t imagine someone paying $79 for a module that comes with a 700 page manual being interested in Game Mode. But it was there. It’s more like ED listening to what their customers want than vice versa.

22 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

All I am saying here is that there will always be friction between DCS's focus on realism/authenticity as a platform and the desires of those who want larger, more open multiplayer scenarios.

There’s really isn’t any “friction” that I notice. Heck the simple system FC3 aircraft play alongside the Full Fidelity modules online and I don’t think that bothers anyone. I don’t see how realism and large open multiplayer exclude one another.

[cfrag]

17 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

All I am saying here is that there will always be friction between DCS's focus on realism/authenticity as a platform and the desires of those who want larger, more open multiplayer scenarios.

Agreed. I think that it is why it would be a good idea if Mission Editor allowed more options under control of the mission designer. The repair time wait interval may be something to allow a mission designer control over. There are others, but OP chose this as their request, so I am focusing on that.

22 minutes ago, statrekmike said:

friction will only get more of a spotlight when the dynamic campaign setup comes along

Indeed. Then again, nobody outside of ED knows what DC really means in the context of DCS, so I'm waiting to see if and what materializes in the years to come. I agree that whatever ED delivers, there will be many discussions and more friction between people and their ideas of what a "proper" mission may be. 

[SharpeXB]

If you ask me Repair is really an SP feature. In MP you don’t need it, you can just re-slot. You can use Repair to complete an SP mission if you’re damaged and don’t want to restart the mission. Assuming that’s an option. 

[Dangerzone]

On 1/12/2025 at 9:08 PM, cfrag said:

Agreed. I would love to have this become a setting in Mission Editor: Instant Repair checkbox. It's completely unrealistic anyway (3 minutes or 3 seconds or instant), so let the mission designer decide if they want this arbitrary element of annoyance.

I would suggest an integer value. Seconds for repair., Setting from 0 to whatever the mission designer decides. This way, if they want a 5 minute repair... make it 300 seconds, instead of 150. Keep 150 as the default, but let the mission designer / server owner have the choice. 

If this was considered, I'd ask for a couple of other options to be thrown in at the same time. Refueling rate, and rearm rate - so you can increase or decrease the delays of these as well. Multiple birds with the one stone?

[cfrag]

5 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

I'd ask for a couple of other options to be thrown in at the same time. Refueling rate, and rearm rate

Yes! And optionally also allow mission designers to get rid of the requirement to shut down the engines for rearming. 

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, cfrag said:

Yes! And optionally also allow mission designers to get rid of the requirement to shut down the engines for rearming. 

I am able to rearm without shutting down the engines. Does that perhaps vary by aircraft? I usually fly the Hornet and M-2000

[AdrianL]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Does that perhaps vary by aircraft

The MiG-29 requires you to open the canopy and shutdown in order to repair. Think it applies to all FC aircraft

[SharpeXB]

25 minutes ago, AdrianL said:

The MiG-29 requires you to open the canopy and shutdown in order to repair. Think it applies to all FC aircraft

Repair yes, but to refuel and rearm?

[cfrag]

22 minutes ago, AdrianL said:

Think it applies to all FC aircraft

Indeed. Plus the Su-25T. It does not apply to many (all?) FF modules. So, for example, you must shut down the A-10A to rearm, but not the C. I *thought* that the Ka-50 was also affected, but, alas, I seem to misremember.

[bies]

Together with Dynamic Campaign i expect "Repair" to dissapear completely as it's grotesquely unrealistic.

You either takeoff in you slightly damaged airframe again, if you are forced to and the damage is minor - or you jump in a new airframe available.

Not wait some magical ~100 or so seconds (!) for the ground crew to replace your wing, one engine, a canopy, plus patch few dozens of holes in your fuselage... It's world of warplanes/WT-esque nonsense. There is a separate "godlike" mode like infinite ammo, no damage, unlimited fuel, instant repairs etc. sometimes usefull for training or just playing aroung for fun.

For Dynamin Campaign damaging the enemy, not only shooting down, will be very important mechanics with realistic reasonable repair times like in all simulators of old which had Dynamic Campaigns.

Edited January 14 by bies

[Melv428]

what makes the waiting time more satisfying to watch would be a proper ground crew like the deck crew from the carrier module which prepares there work with some work tools and equipment and some basic procedure / animations on the jet to see whats going on there. 

same for refueling and rearming. i would love to see that  

Edited January 14 by Melv428