Re-Arm Options

[Arlo]

what extra step? it's simply deleting or commenting out some code so that fuel doesn't even show up. and you don't even need the graphics. just a list of ordnance options.

Do either of us really know it's that simple? Is it really that necessary, for that matter? In an event, anything less than full fuel for anything other than a known inbound strike on that field is not a likely desired amount. That plane would have took off with that amount and would likely keep it. In the MA, where nothing mimics real life, then changing the fuel capacity on a re-arm pad would be no big deal.

[gyrene81]

well, coding something besides the simplistic rearm/refuel to the rearm pad probably isn't as simple as i'm thinking it would be, but if someone were to do it, eliminating the graphics (hangar, guns, bombs, drop tanks) and presenting nothing more than a text list of options would be far easier.

now that you mention it, i think i'm going to bend the ears of cm staff members about fuel options in special events...all of them.

[Arlo]

"The first Spitfire modified to carry bombs was a Malta based VC, EP201, which was able to carry one 250 lb (110 kg) bomb under each wing. In a note to the Air Ministry Air Vice Marshal Keith Park wrote "[w]e designed the bomb gear so that there was no loss of performance when the bombs were dropped. Unlike the Hurricane bomb gear our Spitfire throws away all external fittings with the exception of a steel rib which protrudes less than one inch from the wing.*"







http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,36549.0.html







Yes, engine off. Simple enough. 'Must turn engine off to change or reload ordinance.'

[gyrene81]

Yes, engine off. Simple enough. 'Must turn engine off to change or reload ordinance.'

glad you understand that concept.


i have an idea about the fuel...a compromise maybe...if fuel load out is to be changed from original take off value (not including drop tank), it should take at least an additional 60 seconds for the loadout to be completed.

the reason being, ole goober originally took off with 75% fuel, did his thing and is out of ammo but he still has 50-60% fuel load and now the base he is rearming at is suddenly getting attacked, now he wants to change his fuel load to 25% fuel so he can feel good about himself thinking he now has a better chance to fight the vulchers.

to make the change in his fuel load, the fuel in his plane has to be siphoned and siphoning fuel takes longer than adding fuel...   

in the case where goober is rearming and was out of fuel and wants to now change his take off fuel load, same thing...filling up takes time and the base supply officer is pissy about fuel allocations being correct.

[Slade]

Yes the re-arm pad can be changed in many interesting ways. It's main use is bending perception though, i.e getting name in lights.

Upon landing  why don't we just allow players to enter how many kills they want to be displayed as getting in a sortie and be done with it?

[Arlo]

Yes the re-arm pad can be changed in many interesting ways. It's main use is bending perception though, i.e getting name in lights.

Upon landing  why don't we just allow players to enter how many kills they want to be displayed as getting in a sortie and be done with it?

 

So what I've both suggested and supported others suggesting was always about MA glory messages and not
what I said it was about? Go figure. Thanks for bending that perception back to where it was 'supposed' to be.

 

[Arlo]

glad you understand that concept.


i have an idea about the fuel...a compromise maybe...if fuel load out is to be changed from original take off value (not including drop tank), it should take at least an additional 60 seconds for the loadout to be completed.

the reason being, ole goober originally took off with 75% fuel, did his thing and is out of ammo but he still has 50-60% fuel load and now the base he is rearming at is suddenly getting attacked, now he wants to change his fuel load to 25% fuel so he can feel good about himself thinking he now has a better chance to fight the vulchers.

to make the change in his fuel load, the fuel in his plane has to be siphoned and siphoning fuel takes longer than adding fuel...  

in the case where goober is rearming and was out of fuel and wants to now change his take off fuel load, same thing...filling up takes time and the base supply officer is pissy about fuel allocations being correct.

Which also requires additional code. May as well code in that fuel cannot be reduced and offer the option of either increasing fuel or leaving it alone (which, I believe, is really close to your suggestion that fuel options not be offered what-so-ever).

I'm good with that if you are.  

[Wiley]

i have an idea about the fuel...a compromise maybe...if fuel load out is to be changed from original take off value (not including drop tank), it should take at least an additional 60 seconds for the loadout to be completed.

I'd say it should just check against current load and adjust the time accordingly if that's the route it goes down.  If you're adding more fuel than you have, standard time.

the reason being, ole goober originally took off with 75% fuel, did his thing and is out of ammo but he still has 50-60% fuel load and now the base he is rearming at is suddenly getting attacked, now he wants to change his fuel load to 25% fuel so he can feel good about himself thinking he now has a better chance to fight the vulchers.

It's not a complete waste of time.  With plenty of the high capacity planes, fighting low at 100% is a major disadvantage.  On a spixteen or LA, not so much.

Other than the fuel, I still really don't see much need for it even in scenarios.  If it doesn't allow installation of bomb racks on the rearm pad if they're not already there (which it shouldn't) what is gained that you wouldn't have if you just upped heavy on your first sortie and ditched ord when you could?

Wiley.

[gyrene81]

It's not a complete waste of time.  With plenty of the high capacity planes, fighting low at 100% is a major disadvantage.  On a spixteen or LA, not so much.

Wiley.

if it's a plane with a piss poor power to weight ratio like a p40, i would agree. everything else, not so much. even a jug with 100% fuel can be handled in a knife fight if a person knows what he's doing...or is very lucky.

[gyrene81]

i think i figured out a compromise. for ma use only...give people their gamey rearm/refuel options.

after 2 new destroyable static objects can be added to the maps...refueling trucks/wagons and ordnance trucks/wagons at the rearming pad. they can be taken out by bombs or gun fire with the same hardness and down time as field ack with the provision that if base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have been porked, they don't respawn until after the base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have popped. as long as the fuel and ords trucks/wagons are down, the rearm pad is non functional.

whatcha fellers think about that?

[Arlo]

i think i figured out a compromise. for ma use only...give people their gamey rearm/refuel options.

after 2 new destroyable static objects can be added to the maps...refueling trucks/wagons and ordnance trucks/wagons at the rearming pad. they can be taken out by bombs or gun fire with the same hardness and down time as field ack with the provision that if base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have been porked, they don't respawn until after the base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have popped. as long as the fuel and ords trucks/wagons are down, the rearm pad is non functional.

whatcha fellers think about that?

Interesting. More coding still .... but interesting.

[Tinkles]

i think i figured out a compromise. for ma use only...give people their gamey rearm/refuel options.

after 2 new destroyable static objects can be added to the maps...refueling trucks/wagons and ordnance trucks/wagons at the rearming pad. they can be taken out by bombs or gun fire with the same hardness and down time as field ack with the provision that if base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have been porked, they don't respawn until after the base fuel tanks and ords bunkers have popped. as long as the fuel and ords trucks/wagons are down, the rearm pad is non functional.

whatcha fellers think about that?

Hmmm.

 

You have my interest.

[gyrene81]

   poop it would require every ma map being reworked just to get the new static objects put in at all the airbases...and there are a lot of airbases.

[ImADot]

  poop it would require every ma map being reworked just to get the new static objects put in at all the airbases...and there are a lot of airbases.

The airbases are just a special collection of objects. If they change/add stuff to the group (like they did with the 88's and AT guns), there is no map re-work that needs to be done. The objects will update themselves just fine. HTC might have to re-build the terrain, but they shouldn't have to manually touch each and every base.

[gyrene81]

interesting!!! thanks Imadot. then, if i'm not totally out of my mind, they have fuel trucks already modeled as static objects in tank towns. wonder how much trouble it would be to make them destructible objects and place them at the rearm pad.