« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Re-Arm Pad Options  (Read 803 times)

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Re-Arm Pad Options
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2009, 08:03:43 AM »
Quote from: Xasthur on February 06, 2009, 05:28:50 AM
I made a thread about this ages ago.... HTC said no.

My proposal specifically stated that no armament that was not initially loaded on the aircraft at take off could be loaded.

Instead, the level of fuel put into the aircraft at re-fuel could be selected  (which seems reasonable... the techs just pour more or less fuel in) and whether or not you actually wanted to load bombs and rockets again (which would take longer to re-arm).

I thought it was a great idea... but alas, HTC do not agree.

It would be great to take 75% fuel in a 109, fly to a fight.... find that you've only got enough fuel for a short fight..... RTB and refuel with 100% instead. Perhaps a 10 second time penalty could be added or something...

Eh... it sounded pretty definite when they said no last time.

I like this :aok
Logged
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
Re: Re-Arm Pad Options
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2009, 09:55:33 AM »
I thought Pyro held HTs leash. In the sense that Pyro is the developer, HT is the simple coad toad.  Pyro needs to be chastised for not implimenting this obvious evolutionary progression of the Re-Arm pad.

Plus, if enough of us liked this feature, I think HT would sell us the time it would take for him to add this improvement to the game.  Maybe $200.....
Logged
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Re-Arm Pad Options
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2009, 10:18:16 AM »
Quote from: redwing7 on February 04, 2009, 12:07:15 PM
speaking of rearm pads, how about having rearm pads for aircraft at GV bases. :rock
 :salute

No.

The motor pool mechanics and re-fuelers have not the slightest idea what their doing when it comes to aircraft.  Vehicle bases need to remain VEHICLE bases, imo.  It is already sad enough we can land at vehicle bases.
Logged
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
Re: Re-Arm Pad Options
« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2009, 10:29:29 AM »
Quote from: SmokinLoon on February 06, 2009, 10:18:16 AM
No.

The motor pool mechanics and re-fuelers have not the slightest idea what their doing when it comes to aircraft.  Vehicle bases need to remain VEHICLE bases, imo.  It is already sad enough we can land at vehicle bases.

I agree.

An easy fix would be to simply disable teh ability to "land successfully" at a GV base.  Even a technically safe landing should count as a ditch there.
Logged
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline RedTeck

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: Re-Arm Pad Options
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2009, 11:16:49 AM »
The M4 used AVGAS for its radial engine if i'm not mistaken. The pilot would be able to refuel it. Just make it a max of 25% and no ords or ammo at a gv rearm. It won't help with a base defense, just lets a pilot get back to an airfeld.
Logged
Ho's are like Speedos.
Nothing says you can't use it, but no one wants to see it.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »