Does Anyone Mind LONG Distances In This Sim?

[Guest pfunkmusik]

I'm currently working on a new terrain and I'm just asking a general question.

 

Do you get bored with long transition times? I usually just speed up the time compression, but some don't.

 

pfunk

[column5 63]

I also don't particularly care for flying long distances in a sim. I like getting to the action fairly quickly.

[Guest pfunkmusik]

I'm working on a terrain in Asia and the distances are pretty long, but I went with an extreme test. Distance to the the IP was about 300 miles.

 

pfunk

[+allenjb42 4,234]

Well we can always alt-n. Unless there are mountains in the way!

[kesegy 5]

is that on realistic or medium fuel setting? i fear that those playing realistic (which in my opinion is too realistic) will have only fumes to feed into the engine at those distances.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Long distances are not fun - dont think they are in real life either tbh from what ive read - the biggest killer though is time available for sorties.

 

If you have a fast PC you can bump the time accel up to x16 etc which is what I often use.

 

if using alt+n move the IP waypoint on the map to a low ground area before the mission.

[Mannie 21]

I use the ALT-N magic knob.

[gbnavy61 1]

is that on realistic or medium fuel setting? i fear that those playing realistic (which in my opinion is too realistic) will have only fumes to feed into the engine at those distances.

 

Yeah, unless you're getting us some Tanker assets to gas up on the way in and out.

[Guest pfunkmusik]

Well, in order for it to work and to keep the targets where I want them without hitting "The Wall", it'll be big.

 

I'll just have to keep the action as tight as possible.

 

pfunk

[Guest Stiglr]

In my view, realism requires that the target area or hot zone isn't always, or seldom ever, "5 minutes away"... the absolute requirement that one be hip deep in MiGs within 2 minutes of gear up is a sign of a gamer mentality.

 

If your sim is worth anything, there should be "something to do" between home base and wherever the action may be or the target. If nothing else, NAVIGATING. And not knowing when or if anything will happen on the way... well, that's what makes it interesting. You should not be able to 'expect' contact, whether by timing or by direction. If you don't spot it, or if radar doesn't detect it, you're quite simply screwed.

 

Now, in some eras you can have hour(s)-long transits... and yeah, that's not fun... but for most missions, if the whole affair from briefing to debriefing takes 1 - 1.5 hours of your time, that's reasonable.

[+Typhoid 231]

I look at Alt-N as simulating tankers............

[gbnavy61 1]

I look at Alt-N as simulating tankers............

 

Hadn't thought of it like that.

[commander 0]

is that on realistic or medium fuel setting? i fear that those playing realistic (which in my opinion is too realistic) will have only fumes to feed into the engine at those distances.

Depends on the plane, here are some CR's for some planes: F-86E Combat radius 330Mi, Hawker hunter f.6 CR 443mi, F-106b 575mi, F-8 1425mi, Mirage IIIC 180mi, RF-4e 594mi, Saab viggen <622mi, Tomcat (d) 1239 mi, eagle © 1222 mi, Viper (c Block 52) 340mi, Hornet © 460 mi, Sea harrier FRS.mkI 980 mi.

These Specs are From the Book "Fighter - The worlds finest combat aircraft - 1914 to the present" by jim winchester

 

For those who do not know what combat radius actually means, here is the Wikipedia Defn.

Combat radius refers to the distance from an airbase that a warplane can reach, patrol there for a set amount of time and return to base with minimal fuel left. For a given aircraft, this distance varies according to whether or not it carries external drop tanks, the level (altitude) of the combat mission, and the amount and weight of ordnance it is carrying.

[Echarlie 0]

I for one dont much mind long transit times. I like realism and if in reality it take awile to fly there then so be it.

It just gives me more time to assemble my flight, climb to altitude and then take in the scenery and mentally prepare.

As far as the fuel issue goes, just take less ordinance and add more external fuel. (realism again)

Of course if you have 3 bags of gas hangin on yer Phantom and they are allready empty when you get to the target....

well maybe you gotta use a different aircraft. ("The Mustang cant do what a Spitfire does BUT it does it over Berlin")

I guess my whole point is to not modify a terrain just cuz the flight times may be a little long. I will fly it anyway.

 

Disclaimer: Im also the type who when not playing SF will take my CS B707 and fly it from NYC to London :D

[+drdoyo 2]

300 miles, That's one leg for me at work. It's just over an hour, and we're plenty busy most of the way.

 

As for the game I prefer to fly it all the way. I despise air-starts and skipping /compressing. Wether or not I take on the long flight depends on what kind of time I have available. Sometimes I go, sometimes I don't. I do get sick of the repeating nearby (within 30 miles) CAS missions in a recent campaign though. I've actually started avoiding them to an extent.

[PIGHUNTA69 0]

Long distances are not fun - dont think they are in real life either tbh from what ive read - the biggest killer though is time available for sorties.

 

If you have a fast PC you can bump the time accel up to x16 etc which is what I often use.

 

if using alt+n move the IP waypoint on the map to a low ground area before the mission.

 

How do you get up to x16 i have a fast PC but i only get up to x8. And what is alt-n i've never used it before.

[TheChief2000 0]

Personally I usually try to do the long flight for the added realsim of performing the ingress and egress. That forces me to deal with enemy air defenses, but also means sometimes I get jumped by enemy fighters several miles before my target. I do have some gripes about realistic fuel consumption though. It is partly my own fault I guess for not looking into the files yet, but when I fly an F-111 it seems like the cockpit gauge shows my external tanks are dry about 20 miles from take-off no matter what throttle settings I use. It also seems that my B-24J doesn't have anywhere near the range of my B-17s.

Edited August 12, 2008 by TheChief2000

[ONETINSOLDIER 2]

Long distances are not fun - dont think they are in real life either tbh from what ive read - the biggest killer though is time available for sorties.

 

If you have a fast PC you can bump the time accel up to x16 etc which is what I often use.

 

if using alt+n move the IP waypoint on the map to a low ground area before the mission.

 

 

you can move the waypoints?

[+EricJ 4,244]

I've always like long distance flights. Sure sometimes it's nice to fly the wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am missions, taking some time to fly isn't bad either.

[+allenjb42 4,234]

Alt-n jumps you to the IP - the Initial Point, which is the waypoint before the target.

You can move some of the waypoints, including the IP, by going into the planning map screen within the hangar section, and just dragging the waypoints on the map.

[Stick 773]

Heck theres a lot to do especially on those flights.Navigate is one and dodge enemy CAP.

For especially long flights(say Tel Nof to somewhere over Cyprus) I climb all the way upto 48000 feet throttle back to 40%, order my wingies into a tight wedge, and then take pictures, F6 or F10 to view whats in the air, read enemy positions on the radar so as to avoid large flights of trouble, bang the target and climb back up, and cruise back. Dusk and dawn are killer.

[Murphy'S 15]

don't forget the fact, in this game the maps aren't full sized.

[Guest Stiglr]

Arrrrrgh, how do you guys PUT UP with that????

 

Combat radius was a HUGE factor with the thirsty early jets!!!!

 

Full-sized accurate maps are a must for a serious sim, don't ya think???

[Southernap 1]

The issue though is that this isn't a serious sim. Most people play the TK series of games because they are easier to pick up and get right into the flying and destroying targets business. If they wanted to really take on the challenges of take off, LORAN/TACAN/DR navigation, flipping the airplane around to find the target and trying to put five hundred pounds of death on to it; well then Microsoft Game Studios would still be building their Combat Flight Simulation program or looking for something of the scale of complexity that Lock-On or Falcon 4 were. If it was a serious simulation then you would have the ability to accurately model in-flight refueling or the fact that one doesn't get a chance to walk up and just change their weapons while sitting in the hangar. So if the planners had figured you needed to fly from Bitburg to the Inter-German Border near Frankfurt in a F-84F with only one bomb and drop tanks on the rest of the hard points. Well that was the way it was going to be. Even in Real Life the most that a squadron planning staff can look at the air tasking order for the next day and submit the best idea on what the loadouts they would want for the next days flights. Some times those changes get over ruled by higher staff.

You are correct though that in real life one had to accurately pay attention to fuel management in a large number of those early jets and even today there have been a number of times some close calls in tactical combat aircraft have come from aircrew not paying attention to fuel management.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

In my view, realism requires that the target area or hot zone isn't always, or seldom ever, "5 minutes away"... the absolute requirement that one be hip deep in MiGs within 2 minutes of gear up is a sign of a gamer mentality.

 

That's not taking into account CAS crews operating close to front lines to minimise turnaround time.

 

 

Personally, I don't mind the distances involved unless I'm using a helicopter and the AO is 1000kms away. Then I get annoyed! :yes: