Require planes to land to rearm?

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-03 16:15

about the ramp, actually a lot of the smaller V/STOL aircraft
carriers use ramps instead of catapults to launch their aircrafts.

the british in particular with their harriers, and since we're gonna have the
brits and we even have the harriers modelled already, it makes sense to have
the carriers reflect the british carrier model.

and regarding the low speed flying, i think we can just reduce the speed
tolerance limit, and reduce the acceleration of the plane. that way, we won't
have pilots doing crawl speed to gun ppl down and then jet away to full speed
in a blink.

GRB · Post by **GRB** » 2006-02-03 18:58

I also agree with having to land the Jets in order to re-arm and repair them.

Map design is key here though. As many of you have pointed out the runway systems would have to be fairly redesigned. IMO, that is not a bad thing but instead, a turn for the better.

Runways should be designed to promote taxiing in order to take-off. They also need to be designed to reduce any type of reversing the Jets would have to do. Because IRL, a Jet cannot reverse without help.

The runways don't necessarily have to be longer. They just have to have more room at one end to allow the Jets to turn around and what-not. Also, there should never be large obstructions near or infront of a runway. That is just common sense.

Some food for though, something along these lines:

Tzefanya · Post by **Tzefanya** » 2006-02-03 19:39

Unless those obstructions are mountains, which I highly promote.

Post by **eggman** » 2006-02-03 20:02

To do repairs, the map needs the air repair station object. It's the container thingy with the wind sock on it.

IMO it should be replaced near the hangars, or an hangar that's not used for spawning aircraft, but just used to repair aircraft.

Or something like that hehe .. but the layout guidelines need to include some placement of th air repair station object.

Helipads don't need a specific repair object .. they seem to include repair capability themselves. However these can also be tweaked to require landing for repairs. Would need to consider a helipad for repair and re-arming as well as one for spawning helos.

I am not sure what maps have bad airfields... most aircraft carriers would be OK for landing on and maps like Gulf of Oman, El Alamein XXL seem fine to me for landing. How many of the popular maps have bad airfield layouts that would prevent implementing this?

(I don't fly enough to really know).

egg

egg

Tzefanya · Post by **Tzefanya** » 2006-02-03 20:24

I think all the runways are fine, the problem is turning around once you land.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-02-03 20:59

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']To do repairs, the map needs the air repair station object. It's the container thingy with the wind sock on it.

IMO it should be replaced near the hangars, or an hangar that's not used for spawning aircraft, but just used to repair aircraft.

Or something like that hehe .. but the layout guidelines need to include some placement of th air repair station object.

Helipads don't need a specific repair object .. they seem to include repair capability themselves. However these can also be tweaked to require landing for repairs. Would need to consider a helipad for repair and re-arming as well as one for spawning helos.

I am not sure what maps have bad airfields... most aircraft carriers would be OK for landing on and maps like Gulf of Oman, El Alamein XXL seem fine to me for landing. How many of the popular maps have bad airfield layouts that would prevent implementing this?

(I don't fly enough to really know).

egg

egg

Well in terms of obstructions while going in for a landing and also while turning around, i would say Op Clean sweap map is thne worst, you got trees freakin everywhere on the sides of the runways, a nice steep little hill that makes it hard to turn around, plus the helipads are so close the whenever a copter takes off there is a chance of you running into them.

Hangars are never placed directly at the ends of airfields, in fact that are WAY off to the side and would require some taxing to get to them, GRB has got it down right, the onlt thing that needs to be changed is the helipad, in actuall AFBs, the helidpads are far from where a plane would be taxing, so they should be off to the side.

With the ramps, the british carriers should have them, but the US currently does not use them so just different carriers would be fine.

that would be a challenge? And take offs too, have a ramp or summit, 'cos I know for a fact you don't just fly off the edge of a flat!!

Runways on land are flat, and the US carriers runways are flat as well, in fact when planes are catapulted off they dip a few feet down before rising back up.

Being inside or very close to hangars is the best way to go with re-arming.

I was also thinking, is it possible to make airbases out of bounds? so that only your team can be there without taking damage but the enemy could not cross with the usual "return or you will be shot" this would prevent uncappable spawn raping and would also just sorta simulate the airbases being further away from each other as you wouldnt be able to attack each others bases

Xeno426 · Post by **Xeno426** » 2006-02-03 21:27

FlyBoy wrote:Runways on land are flat, and the US carriers runways are flat as well, in fact when planes are catapulted off they dip a few feet down before rising back up.

British Harrier carriers have a ramp up at the end to allow heavier loads to be carried by the Harrier than they would otherwise be able to take off with in the limited carrier runway space.

Additionally, Russia's Kuznetsov carrier doesn't use catapults, but it has a large ramp at the bow.

Szarko · Post by **Szarko** » 2006-02-04 02:13

I agree with the landing part, and with the re-designing the airfields. I also like the idea Fly Boy sujested with the out of bounds for enemy team. That would be great.

Also i would like that planes would be able to choose how many bombs they want to drop. Very anoying when your going for a bombing run and drop 2 bombs and the 2nd one flies away (I know there are ways to get only one bomb to drop, but i would like to be able to choose whether i want 1 or 2 etc)

don corleone · Post by **don corleone** » 2006-02-04 03:36

One solution that I think is worth considering is increasing the weapons payload of the bombers and jets as well as requiring them to land. This definitely satisfies the realism part since jets can handle around 10000pounds payload (or more). ie. Rather than have a f-18 have 2 bombs and 6 sidewinders, give it 6 payloads of single bombs and 2 payloads of 6 sidewinders (if that makes sense). In other words, bombs need to be "reloaded" (like assault rifles) after each being dropped - so in this case, the plane can reload 6 times before needing to land. After all bombs have been dropped, then the jet needs to take a long time to resupply by landing and such. This creates infrequent but very lengthy periods of resupply.

This way, jets and bombers will still be very active in the air, allowing for intensive bombing runs between resupplies (since they're not resupplying as often), while also giving ground pounders a good chance because when the planes are gone to resupply, they will be gone for quite a long time.

I know the payload aspect of the planes is easy to implement (as i've done so myself by playing with the tweak files). Just change the "number of mags" to however many payloads the plane is to carry, and also change the "magSize" to however many bombs you want to drop per click of the mouse.

Altering the airfield resupply rate code and stuff...I have no idea.

Hope this is a good idea because it caters to both the pilot and infantry (not to mention also the realism aspect).

worst 3 · Post by **worst 3** » 2006-02-04 04:22

don corleone wrote:One solution that I think is worth considering is increasing the weapons payload of the bombers and jets as well as requiring them to land. This definitely satisfies the realism part since jets can handle around 10000pounds payload (or more). ie. Rather than have a f-18 have 2 bombs and 6 sidewinders, give it 6 payloads of single bombs and 2 payloads of 6 sidewinders (if that makes sense). In other words, bombs need to be "reloaded" (like assault rifles) after each being dropped - so in this case, the plane can reload 6 times before needing to land. After all bombs have been dropped, then the jet needs to take a long time to resupply by landing and such. This creates infrequent but very lengthy periods of resupply.).

are u sure they can cary that much munitons at one time? that seems a bit much maby 1 set but are u sure about bouth. i mean sidwinders are not large but bombs are. i dont have knowlege about fighter jets though it just look like a bit much. thought a do agree that the load is bit light or explosions.

if they land i would say increase there wepon load

Post by **fuzzhead** » 2006-02-04 04:24

I think it should be like Desert Combat;

each missle/bomb is physically on the plane model. As they shoot, they physically leave the model, and there is no 'reloads', not too realistic..

don corleone · Post by **don corleone** » 2006-02-04 04:38

worst 3 wrote:are u sure they can cary that much munitons at one time? that seems a bit much maby 1 set but are u sure about bouth. i mean sidwinders are not large but bombs are. i dont have knowlege about fighter jets though it just look like a bit much. thought a do agree that the load is bit light or explosions.

if they land i would say increase there wepon load

"The F-18 Super Hornet can carry approximately 17,750 pounds (8,032 kg) of external load on eleven stations." Source http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-18.htm. ALSO, those bombs are roughly 1000pounds each.

I'm not to big on planes myself, but surely six bombs isn't too much.

And, Fuzzhead, sorry if I was misleading with respect to "reloading". All I'm saying is that there is a delay between per bomb dropped. All the available bombs still should be visible, its that only one bomb can be released every couple of seconds. This is merely for the sake of balance. Again, I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-04 05:43

although the F-18 technically can carry 6 bombs quite easily, assuming they use thoose standard MK-82s, they will suffer considerable reduction in their maneuverability. An F-18 on CAP duty will NOT carry that sort of ground ordnance at all, because they will not be able to manouvre in a dogfight.

and you cannot fit that many bombs and AAM at once, in regards of AAM especially, they don't generally max out their loadout with it. IRL, they carry few sidewinders (2), and a good complement of AMRAAMs. note that even though they posses 10 weapon hardpoints, not ALL of the hardpoints can carry different weapon. for instance, the only weapon hardpoint assigned to sidewinder is the wing tip hardpoint, and only some of the hardpoints on the underside can carry bombs (this is compensated with bomb rack).

a general loadout for an F-18 for instance:

if u want 6 Mk-82: 6 Mk-82, 2 sidewinder, 2 AMRAAM
if u want the big brother AGM-88: 2 AGM-88, 2 sidewinder, 2 AMRAAM

and if u want pure anti air loadout: 2 sindewinder, 6 AMRAAM, or
8 AMRAAM.

btw: thoose Mk-82s are 500 lbls each, not 1000, the one that weighs 1000 each r the Mk-83s

don corleone · Post by **don corleone** » 2006-02-04 06:41

Zepheris Casull wrote: a general loadout for an F-18 for instance:

if u want 6 Mk-82: 6 Mk-82, 2 sidewinder, 2 AMRAAM
if u want the big brother AGM-88: 2 AGM-88, 2 sidewinder, 2 AMRAAM

and if u want pure anti air loadout: 2 sindewinder, 6 AMRAAM, or
8 AMRAAM.

btw: thoose Mk-82s are 500 lbls each, not 1000, the one that weighs 1000 each r the Mk-83s

Thanks for the correction. I don't know what bombs the f-18s dropped in the game, I just did a random search of a bomb type f-18s carried and it said 1000lbls. Guess I was wrong. Anyway, your suggestions for loadout is much better, especially considering it is larger than the current loadout. Hope the devs keep this in mind IF they decide to stipulate landings for rearming.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-04 06:54

they can carry the Mk-83s, the bomb rack is meant to accomodate a whole range of bombs after all it's just that i've not read of a fully loaded F-18 with Mk-83.

speaking of which, i don't see why there is a need to restrict the number of bombs to be released per second. i mean, if the pilot actually carries 6 Mk-82s and released them in one salvo (which they do IRL when it comes to these non guided bombs), then yeah sure you have a mini hell on the ground for 1.5 seconds after which the F-18 has 0 ground ordnance and has to rearm back at base for long period (assuming we finally finish all the details on the land to rearm issue).

don corleone · Post by **don corleone** » 2006-02-04 07:17

Zepheris Casull wrote:they can carry the Mk-83s, the bomb rack is meant to accomodate a whole range of bombs after all it's just that i've not read of a fully loaded F-18 with Mk-83.

speaking of which, i don't see why there is a need to restrict the number of bombs to be released per second. i mean, if the pilot actually carries 6 Mk-82s and released them in one salvo (which they do IRL when it comes to these non guided bombs), then yeah sure you have a mini hell on the ground for 1.5 seconds after which the F-18 has 0 ground ordnance and has to rearm back at base for long period (assuming we finally finish all the details on the land to rearm issue).

Ok. Then remove the delay idea. I can accept that. Great for realism, but gameplay-wise, the jets just become carpet bombers like the f-15s etc. I just thought the delay would force jets to be selective in their bombings, whereas the bombers can do their job of laying waste on ground.

I really don't care about the delay. I just wanted to make it clear that IF landing is required, that jets AND bombers both should carry (slightly or substantially) larger payloads - similar to realistic loadouts.

Zepheris Casull · Post by **Zepheris Casull** » 2006-02-04 07:42

unn, i understand what u mean.

How about this then, if for SOME reason the F-18 needs to carry a maximum loadout on the non guided MK-82 bombs, then let them. But, increase their rearm time substantially for ground ordnance.

What i am a bit iffy is the fact that F-18s carrying this kind of ground ordnance should be no match at all in a dogfight against a plane with just AAMs and guns.

I don't know if it's possible to code in a different flying charateristic as the planes drop their load and reduce their weight in the game, but if it is possible, that might solve the problem.

Btw: an F-15 with minimal weight ordnance, will easily be a match for most fighter craft in a dogfight, even if they do not have the advantage in missile payload. similarly, an F-18E fully loaded for ground assault can bring a similar mayhem as a fully loaded F-15. (the F-15s were after all, originally meant to wipe out any air target that can be a threat)

Ideally i would love to be able to choose my loadout before taking off, but if that's not possible then at least i should be able to increase my performance in dogfight by jettisoning unnecessary weight such as bombs (fuel tank would be nice but that's pushing it).

speaking of which i always wondered, why do they use F-15s as the ground pounder instead of the F-18s in the game?? i don't understand, IRL as far as the number shows anyway, the F-15 should win hands down in air to air engagement and the F-15s were built with air superiority in mind whereas the F-18 were multirole.

Stu007 · Post by **Stu007** » 2006-02-04 11:25

if we are going to make them land to rearm or somthing, which we should, we need to progam arrestor gear, or some really strong brakes, 'cos as we stand we just land, and hope that it rolls to a gentle stop, which is highly unrealistic.

Campez · Post by **Campez** » 2006-02-04 17:22

I really like the idea of that, and then when you have to land on the carrier you would grap on to some wires like in real life

just a suggestion.

Resjah · Post by **Resjah** » 2006-02-04 17:43

Zepheris Casull wrote:unn, i understand what u mean.

speaking of which i always wondered, why do they use F-15s as the ground pounder instead of the F-18s in the game?? i don't understand, IRL as far as the number shows anyway, the F-15 should win hands down in air to air engagement and the F-15s were built with air superiority in mind whereas the F-18 were multirole.

Thats because the F-15 ingame is the E version the strike eagle, this version is meant for Air to ground roles. The fighter version of the F-15 is the C version, which i agree should be put in the mod, as the F-15C is more than a match for any other type of Fighter Aircraft, same with the F-15E, it will be a tiny bit slower than the F-15C version because of the longer Fuselage to accomodate the two pilots but it should still be very effective in dogfighting enagagements.

Its is True that the F/A-18 is a multirole fighter, but its very good at both air to air and air to ground combat so its not like it should be a ground pounder mainly, it should be just as the F-15C version.

Yeh the arrestor gears should be put on the carriers, im not sure how it will be implemented into the mod though, perhaps just have the carrier aircraft have a new feature that when they touch the ground the could press some button and have a some sudden breaks, as Stu007 said.