AIR REFUELING

[+Veltro2k 6,315]

I Would !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited March 11, 2009 by Veltro2k

[Silverbolt 104]

Sure!!!!

[Hanseat 1]

AIR REFUELING, yes Sir

[+Dave 2,318]

I voted no because I wouldnt use it. I mean I think it should have it for those that want it though. So I wasn't sure how to vote. Make sense.

[mppd 16]

Count me in - I like the simulated version as it appears in YAP2 and here as an add-on mod, and I would like it even more if it was incorporated for real in a patch for the existing TW sims.

 

Mike D.

[+GrinchWSLG 24]

There's a ton of other things I'll take over air refueling any day.

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

I voted no for the same reasons as Dave.

 

I'm not a programmer but I think it might be hard to code it into this engine, especially the dynamic campaign and random generated missions.

 

I could be off base on that assumption though.

[Jammin-Joe 0]

Yes but with triggers (hot keys) like after your at bingo or during first or second leg to site and second leg and beyond upon return to base.

[+DoctorQuest 107]

No. It would be nice. I would not pay for it.

[GwynO 16]

Somewhere down the line it would be great to have, however, I think the real missing link for me is the avionics for modern bomb release, CCRP etc.

I'd still pay for further instalments provided refuelling etc were part of the overall plan for the near future. If the focus of new games will centre on bringing added richness to the high end graphics card users instead of such things, then I'm afraid I wont be buying them any more.

[serverandenforcer 33]

I voted yes. I think air refueling would add a significant challenge to the sim. It's more than just pressing a button and getting a banana. It takes skill and hard work, especially if things are setup realisticall. One wrong move and you not only take yourself down, but the tanker as well. Besides, the roles could also be reversed where you're the tanker or boom lift operator and have to refuel the birds that are thirsty.

[MigBuster 2,860]

How realistic would you want it though - it was a pain to implement it in Falcon 4 - and LP changed it about 4 times between 2005 and 2008 also.

 

I rarely use it - its not always required for campaigns and its fun for the first 5 minutes. The player would need to manage where the tanker was placed to make use of it - any auto placement would see it flying 80 miles away when you need it (as happens in Falcon when you dont set its waypoints)

 

Something TK would have to address is a stable KC-135 if he put it in - with an automated boom - and maybe on easy mode an autopilot would take over and do it for the player - still quite a lot of work there!

[jomni 6]

I'd rather have the detailed mission creator.

[+Gepard 10,230]

I say no. Air refuelling is not my cup of tea.

[Spinners 15,966]

No.

[+ST0RM 145]

Said Yes for obvious reasons.

 

But honestly, in real missions you have to A/R to get to the target or get back home. In some cases, both.

 

Having a mission editor that would allow you to create missions where the tanker is in the right place(s) is a must for A/R to work in this sim though.

[+331Killerbee 840]

I'd have to agree with Storm's points on IR. I'd like it.

 

But better yet, I'd like to see Pilot.BMP's assigned down to the Squadron Level or to the Aircraft's Skin......

[+russouk2004 6,951]

couldnt care less really....

simulated air refuelling just takes up the fuel.....

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,542]

try to fly side by side with a plane and imagine how difficult it is to rendevous a tanker

[+streakeagle 864]

I don't see co-ordinating air refueling hardly more difficult than carrier landing waypoints.

Jane's USAF made air-to-air refueling both semi-realistic and fun: you had to fly very accurately into a specific position before it would trigger the auto refueling sequence.

Such a system would be appropriate for TK's sim: not totally dumbed down and fully automated, but not too difficult either.

 

Given the YAP work-around, I see no need for TK to implement this anytime soon.

While I don't think I would turn down anything released by TK for the SF series, nor would I specifically want to pay more for refueling.

There is a sizable list of things I would much rather see fixed/added first.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,542]

TK is optimizing this seires with every patch, we et new avionics, new codes and it`s becomeing even more complete. As long we have here some inovative guys like Fubar, FC, CA Stary and some other wich names I forgot.. we will enjoy this sim for the next years

[+EricJ 3,929]

Said Yes for obvious reasons.

 

But honestly, in real missions you have to A/R to get to the target or get back home. In some cases, both.

 

Having a mission editor that would allow you to create missions where the tanker is in the right place(s) is a must for A/R to work in this sim though.

 

I agree, I've had birds hit A/R while overwatching us in-country. If they'd had to land at their home airfield it would be pointless to have them flying in the first place. Turnaround would be much higher and make them useless. They hit the A/R, then come back, there's nothing reassuring than having somebody overhead looking out for us, and A/R does that, so yes I would like to see it implemented.

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

I agree, I've had birds hit A/R while overwatching us in-country. If they'd had to land at their home airfield it would be pointless to have them flying in the first place. Turnaround would be much higher and make them useless. They hit the A/R, then come back, there's nothing reassuring than having somebody overhead looking out for us, and A/R does that, so yes I would like to see it implemented.

 

To be fair though, in TW games, most missions you are tasked with, you really don't need air refueling, I mean for instance you aren't doing real world Afghanistan scenarios, where you get airborne and loiter until you are called for a mission if needed. You get your mission, fly to the already designated target, hit it, and go home. It would be different if your mission was to take off, go to a point and wait for TSGT Weed to call you in with TIC, then go refuel, and if you still have ordnance left loiter some more waiting for the next call.

 

I don't think anyone is debating the need for real world tankers, but in the TW world, they would be more gimicky than anything.

 

Then you would run into problems with, if it was needed in every mission, some people might not be able to become experts at it, then the sim loses its fun value for them, and you lose a player or even a modder.

 

I am not a pilot, I don't play these games to pretend I am one, I play them to have fun, so I don't do everything real pilots do IE: landing lights canpopies opening/closing. All that stuff is fine and dandy and it's cool if you like that, but if say 33% of the time I can't even get to the target because I am too busy crashing trying to refuel on the way in, I'd quit playing, and if I had to refuel on the way home, I'd hit escape every single time I got "Mission Accomplished" so that there would't be a chance of error ending my campaign.

[Rodent 0]

Dynamic missions would be pretty cool too. Chances of getting a new additional objective while already on a mission could make things interesting. Would have to be intelligent enough to get you something you carry ordnance to take care of, and enough fuel for the extra distance. Say you are on your way to bomb a target and friendly ground troops request air support and you are the only thing close enough that has the capability to kill some tanks.

[JediMaster 451]

Like some others here, I don't care about it nor would I pay more for JUST that, but I think the option should be available for those who want it as long as it's not cost-prohibitive for TK to implement it.

 

In short, I've no problem with extra features being added that I will never use as long as it doesn't cost me anything or preclude a more useful feature (like aforementioned avionics or others) from being created!