Rearm

[moot]

No taxiing at all isn't realistic.

[frank3]

Lost me there, what do you mean?

[moot]

Not any more realistic than it is to operate a ground vehicle and never come across impassible obstacles.  Which indestructible sheep, trees, and houses sub for.  Same thing with taxiing for a rearm.  No plane in reality ever was serviced without a minimum of taxiing.  Nevermind all of the taxiing between storage and runway for everything else.

[frank3]

Found a random picture on google of a typical WWII airfield, in this case Boxted.

Clearly marked are the ammunition/fuel dumps, and visible are the parkinglots for the aircraft.
Now, following the taxi-ways around the airfield, I see no obstructions whatsoever anywhere near them.
Ofcourse I'm not saying our own airfields should look exactly like these, but having buildings near places where aircraft taxi would seem dumb. Even 70 years ago.

[Twizzty]

See Sig   

[moot]

Frank- You'd have to taxi to get yourself refueled on that field.  More carefully than you have to in AH.  What seems dumb to me is not knowing how to do some dead simple taxiing without ramming an innanimate object, and saying it's the object's fault.  You can effectively remove the risk of snagging your wings against those objects by learning some basic controls, the same way you learn not to ground loop or bend your prop.  Even the brakes are dumbed down so you really have to try to nose your plane into the ground when you brake to a stop at the end of a landing.

[frank3]

Yes yes, I understand all of the above. However;
I think the majority of the players knows how to do some proper taxiing. This is not the problem.
But what I am implying, is that it shouldn't be neccessary to avoid the buildings, since they never should've been the there in the first place.

It's like building some kind of obstacle-course your GV has to follow in order to get in the open. Everyone knows how to navigate through, but the silly thing being that it's neccessary.

I am merely supporting the original wish.

EDIT: Was it comon practise back in the days to taxi the aircraft to the fueldump, or having a fueltruck drive up to the aircraft?
(that was a real question, not a sarcastic one)

[moot]

You neither spawned at the runway nor teleported out after braking to a stop at the end of landing. I really doubt that you could just taxi from runway to hangar without a single obstacle to keep track of. So they taxied around those.  Along specific paths and avoiding obstacles between you and the hangar/runway.  Just like you have to now with the rearm pad, except what we do now is way simpler and easier.  So what we're left with is players who want a tiny building removed because they don't want to taxi.  If those players did know how to taxi, they wouldn't ask for this.  Avoiding the rearm structures is child's play.  It's a non-issue.

[Motherland]

Now, following the taxi-ways around the airfield, I see no obstructions whatsoever anywhere near them.

That's because you can't see anything on that map, barely even the hangars.

[frank3]

The issue is not people not wanting or able to taxi. And you're right, avoiding the buildings is, indeed, child's play.

Somehow we brought the subject to taxiing, instead of the original wish; removing the buildings around a re-arm pad.

[moot]

+
It makes it quicker to rearm

+-
It's "more realistic" from a blind reproduction of historical rearming procedure (why move a mostly blind and awkward vehicle (plane) when more agile one (truck) could just drive up to and away), but also less realistic: You did need to watch your step once you were on the ground.

-
You barely gain anything from it. Taxiing right now costs ~5 seconds.
It's a non-issue once you learn some very basic taxiing.
You'll have players following even less realistic patterns: just drive straight to the pad, ignore runway since field's grass is unrealistically a non-hazard to taxiing.

[AWwrgwy]

Just to be a sucker for sarcasm I'll take the bait. Trees are generally not found near re-arm pads, let alone on airfields, or other places aircraft might taxi/take-off/land or being maintained.

Some jokester likes to put a tree right at the end of a runway on some of these fields.  Aesthetically pleasing I'm sure.


wrongway

[Enker]

Some jokester likes to put a tree right at the end of a runway on some of these fields.  Aesthetically pleasing I'm sure.


wrongway

Just like having the base in a gully with either end facing a hill? A hill that could be called a mountain if it had snow on the top?

[ACE]

its not that hard to use your throlthe  and rudder to miss the building near the pad

[Banshee7]

And while we are at it, remove the trees too. I often fly into them when fighting on the deck. Why are they there in the first place?

Best....wish....EVAH!