Up and coming.... ideas for 1.70?

Thanks for the new added features exec!
New features:
1. .tx command - Can it be provided to have a percentage to put in, like .tx 60 for 60%? and .tx 100 for complete transfer of score and kill reward?
2. Fuel levels - Why not have this option for all aircraft?
3. Radar - Nice setup! Will it state -RADAR OPERATOR-: "visual on high P51, 7 clk" etc?
4. .ecm (radar jamming) - Can the jamming be automatically initiated by the radar operator as an option?

 

1. why so complex? 20%+20%+20% is simply and clear

2. probably to make "scramble-die-relog-scramble-die-relog..." scenario harder

3. visual? why radar then? just take-off a heavy interceptor and check

4. nope

 

.ecm function

I found two issues/problems with this feature.

1. When I use the .ecm command, it tells me: "use chaff trap", rather than something like "chaff trap released". Either it's a mixed up response, or incorrect grammar.

2. When the .ecm is initiated, it says "Enemy radar jammed. Be off!" What is "Be off" ??

 

1. What is this .tx function really for btw?

2. I don't understand. Isn't that time restrict?

3. No. This is the job of gunners and radar operator. Radar reporting is only otto reports, just less information. What's the point?

4. Ok. But, ottos are able to fire upon an enemy target.
BTW....I noticed while testing with mumble, that ottos are more reasonable and expected for what would be considered a human gunner. Nice!

 

1. Ok
2. Air slang. Same as escape without looking back.

 

Radar reporting by radar operator. He has 3 indicators: elevation, azimuth and range by analogy Fug.220 but more improved and friendly-used. Range and angle has been increased.
Op. says about angle position and range, ex.:
Radar contact: ahead lower at range 13.6 km
Radar contact: 10° left at range 13.8 km

 

1. So, is it just poor grammar then?

2. OK. So, what does that mean to the pilot?

 

So, rather than having onboard radar, it is just otto visual reports with greater range. I noticed after an object contact is reported, there is also a visual of a dot incoming. So, evasive maneuvers may be pointless if there is visual contact at the same time a report of an object inbound.

IMHO, it would be nicer and simpler if the aircraft with radar options would have radar function inflight similar to when checking the map in the tower. Just press the map key, and dots within a certain range show up.

 

2. 'Skiddoo' better?

 

You want F-16 radar?
Мaximum range of scanning near 20km. Мaximum range of vis. near 10km.

IRL FuG.220 has range 1-8 km for B-24 (instrumental range) for angle to target below 7°.

 

for building up relationships between bombers and escort fighters, for example.

social feature. in case of escorting, fighters are not quite motivated to save the buff.

fiters usually prefer to engage into vulching instead and they don't really care whether buff can accomplish a mission safely.

on the other hand .tx command gives motivation to see off the bombers the entire way from target to home.

nope.
one can logoff, login with alternative nick and scramble again just at once.
being able to take 2% of fuel, one can feel more comfortable for multiple relogging. they just deny logics of taking off from next field to avoid strafing/vulching and to gain altitude.
when fighter is obliged to have fuel over 25%, he will surely feel that it's harder to scramble under any nick for this situation.

at the same time, the fighter going to fly field-to-field is not troubled with 25% limit.

radar is farther than visual observation. 18km is ca d180 (sic!)

you mean that otto behaviour is more credible and natural now?

 

Umm..not sure what a snowmobile has to do with aircraft though. So, Be Off means, snowmobile?

 

What is F-16 radar? Same as having autopilot in an I-153? 109T's flying that never saw action, nor rolled off any carriers in the first place? Jeeps shooting down aircraft with 25mm guns from D14? What theaters? External view in bombers?? F-16s don't have that feature that I know of. Gotta be realistic here, or what are we basing these ideas upon?

In reality, nearby friendlies can identify themselves, and bombers should have escorts to protect so, it's a matter of game friendliness, not accuracy isn't it? Lack of escort participation is supported by ottos, ottos reporting cons nearby, external views, and now a new "dar" reporting feature, just to let us know we are toast. Why should towers have F-16 radar? What are the buff pilots supposed to do, run?

That's my opinion. I'm sure there are others with opinions as well. Like the 20+ people reading this topic area right now. I've been using this simulator more than anyone else here as a fighter I think, but as far as bomber duty, I don't find it that interesting unless there are organized efforts. Take ideas from pilots who use this simulator, and you'll have a simulator for pilots, not historical retentive.

New people have to find this dying simulator useful and fun, not more complicated. I didn't fly simulators for nearly 14 years to know nothing about what makes a simulator entertaining.

In any event, you cannot read my attitude in text so, just because I don't leave a silly smiley doesn't mean I'm lecturing or shouting at you guys.

So, keep up the good work.

 

Well, that's if pilots are concerned about scores. I like to work for my scores and streak/ace level if I'm concerned about points.

What would cause fighter pilots to be more concerned about points and gaining them is only allowing them to fly certain aircraft privileged to those who are successful pilots who DESERVE to fly certain aircraft. There are simulators out there that require a pilot to gain a certain amount of status before being able to fly, say a Ki84, 109K4, 190D, Me262, P-51, P-38, Meteor, Tempest, and other hot-rod type aircraft. In today's games, racing car games, shooter games, you have to earn your right to upgrade to better vehicles or other features. Pretty much as it is in real life. Can this be implemented in WBFH?

Really? A few people have done this enough to force everyone to pay for the few's actions? I haven't seen any improvement with fuel mandates. People still up fields being vulched. I don't care how much fuel I have if I decide to up a field being vulched. I'm not sure it's fair to force everyone to pay for a few, when the many still scramble at once and get killed, then relog with hundreds of nicks available. This isn't a problem you can fix. Because you can't fix stupid. And people on here are stupid, sometimes, and most times.

How about the idea I posted above? Why not mandate a one nick policy? Multiple nick isn't necessary for any reason except cheating, in reality. How many simulators out there have people logging in with countless nicks?

On the subject of multiple nicks.....
Multiple nicks are more of a problem than light fighters taking off for suicide missions, which isn't a problem right now, with the empty arenas. We all know multiple nicks provide easy spying and espionage. Shouldn't we be more concerned about that?

Pilots should decide how much fuel they take, at their own peril.

I'm not sure about that. I tried it, and I didn't find it useful. Sorry. A fighter pilot closing in on a buff because tower radar reports from another user or multiple login, spotted them defeats the whole purpose.

Yes, it doesn't seem like Phalanx guns anymore or, like current CV/ground ottos.

 

1) fiter not oriented to collaboration will not be motivated any ways.

IRL we have orders. IRL soviet fighter-pilots since 1942 were executed if bomber pilots report absense, stupidity or cowardness of escort, and it was absolutely obligatory when one or more bombers killed. we have no such mechanisms here.

but if fighter fights for scores or honour, ".tx" makes it quite useful.

finally, you can thank fighter-to-fighter.

the problem is not that someone would ignore it, someone would not be motivated.

the idea is your memory: you remember who to fly with, who is reliable soldier, who is ungrateful punk.

if you don't understand it, don't use it.

2) what is current lower limitation of fuel for fighters?
are you really suffering that? you feel punished?

3) i proposed ground radars in addition to on-board radars. bimbom still thinking. he wants make it available for all fighters, i want it for heavy interceptors again. we haven't found a concensuss amongst developers

4) damn... i'm glad you pleased.
buff cry that otto is totally helpless now. have you flown on "the other side"?

 

What most bomber pilots are pissed off about are the planes that climb up a bomber's six and shoot them down with no problem. On the other hand, I do find I get pinged more often with a slashing attack than I do flying directly toward a bomber. Maybe it has something to do with the tail gunner not having a very effective field of fire or other guns just not picking up my fighter, but attacking something like a B-17 climbing up to it's six should at least have four guns shooting at you unless you're in that sweet spot where only the tail or bottom gunner can engage you. Otherwise, accuracy is pretty good if I can get hit on a slashing attack.

 

I knew those rumors were true. Stalinization methods. Sneeze while in roll call, off with his head!
IRL since 1776 American servicemen were put in the brig, punished, released and put to some other use or re-instated. There is a goal, there is teamwork and comradeship, loyalty, honor, no man left behind, you fall, they pick you up, not kick you when you're down, respect for your fellow man. If that idea is kept, forces live, the country lives, and grows. We make effort to execute enemies, not our servicemen and defenders of the homeland. Due justice, no knee jerk reactions. Everyone has a chance. United we Stand for All to see, divided, we fall like those across the sea. Here they come, to live where they're free.

In this game, I'd rather have a command where I can take points from the other guy who stole my kill. We know that will never happen. ;-)

Well, 40%, for umm...the last 10+ years. Nothing suffered, except being forced by developers to take a minimum amount of fuel. Punished...such a strong word misplaced. It's been 10+ years like this but, it does say "40% restrict", like we have restrict for dying too soon after taking off. I just don't think developers should forcefully dictate how pilots conduct themselves in the arenas.

Well, the developers need to make this game fun, and fun for those who should want to stay for a while. Historical is nice but, historical does not attract crowds. The developers need to understand this if they don't already. I'm not a developer but, I have an opinion. What's the problem with providing these features? It's not like they are permanent. Radar onboard all fighters in the Main Arena I'm not a big fan of; in the Test Arena and/or Easy Mode arena that should be a default.

Remember guys.....when this movie is out, and people leave the theaters here, they'll come looking for fun.

Don't be glad I'm pleased, be pleased to know that people cannot say the gunners behave like computer laser guided machine guns. I have flown buffs, and I never found the extreme otto settings too excessive, especially after some smart pilots would plan their attacks rather than chasing a buff up it's rear, in a climb, with an escort on his tail, and flying slow....duhhh. And flying over low gunned aircraft from D2, expecting not to die at 500 mph, when bullets travel much much much faster, and the attacker never gets a clue after each death. I've done that, and I know I'm dead after missing my shot.

 

Idea for the arenas I just found that would be nice to consider. It was never responded to by any devs sadly. Having a map change/reset with each war won. This would cause people to either try organize an effort to win the war to change the map they don't like, or defend the map to keep it.

 

Most wins occur w/o opponent.
Change map also restart fh-time.

 

btw, bimbom actually noticed the phenomena:

lone gold bombers spend a vast quantity if hours flying over empty arena and resetting the game.

when bimbom said that to me, i answered that it's not quite a problem.

but if we bind map switch to reset, it will throw us back to 1940 again and again, indeed.

anyways, the idea of switching maps counterstrike-way was heard years ago, and somehow discussed amongst developers. but it did not met support.