Load out configuration Poll

I appreciate the kind words, MJ, but--a clarification: I only have about ten hours at the controls of real airplanes. Not my choice to have so few, of course; I'd have spent the rest of my life flying for real, if it were at all possible.

And Josh, that is quite an accomplishment, certainly ten more hours in a real plane than I have under my belt. You are a legend in flight simulation, with exceptional skill, which is a great accomplishment, in and of itself. Professional electronic sports are just in their infancy, but one day, I think flight simulation will eventually emerge as a very popular and lucrative professional electronic competitive sport. I tend to think you will be an inspiration to a number of the future great professional flight simmers. I would not be shocked to one day read about a champion professional flight simmer discussing how, back in the day, the real greats, like Josh Echo, did it all for the love of flight simulation and not for the money. :thumbup: MJ

And Josh, that is quite an accomplishment, certainly ten more hours in a real plane than I have under my belt. You are a legend in flight simulation, with exceptional skill, which is a great accomplishment, in and of itself. Professional electronic sports are just in their infancy, but one day, I think flight simulation will eventually emerge as a very popular and lucrative professional electronic competitive sport. I tend to think you will be an inspiration to a number of the future great professional flight simmers. I would not be shocked to one day read about a champion professional flight simmer discussing how, back in the day, the real greats, like Josh Echo, did it all for the love of flight simulation and not for the money. :thumbup: MJ

Hear! Hear!

Good for you Echo. At least you got in the mix and did it. I don't know a thing about or have never heard about "professional flight simming" but more power to you! Great things come from humble beginnings so who knows what the future holds and it sounds like you have built a foundation for others to build upon.

... Professional electronic sports are just in their infancy, but one day, I think flight simulation will eventually emerge as a very popular and lucrative professional electronic competitive sport. ...

Hmmm... I am, let's just say, Politely Sceptical of the whole "e"-sports concept. I suppose my idea of a sport (and indeed, sportsmanship) is rather different.

However, seeing as you brought it up: Regardless of whether one can, or whether one could historically, is "flying" with a reduced (internal) fuel load Sporting?

(Sporting = fair & gentlemanly conduct, a concern for the spirit of the competition rather than just winning.)

Hear! Hear!

 

Good for you Echo. At least you got in the mix and did it. I don't know a thing about or have never heard about "professional flight simming" but more power to you! Great things come from humble beginnings so who knows what the future holds and it sounds like you have built a foundation for others to build upon.

If there is ever sufficient interest in flight simming, Josh could rake in crazy money playing for viewers. It is hard for some of us to accept the potential in gaming and simming as a profession, but consider this for a second, Crumpp...

http://www.engadget.com/2015/07/06/pewdiepie-youtube-star-7-million-dollars/

Imagine that! If persons get into flight simulation, imagine the potential for flight simming as a profession! :thumbup: MJ

P.S. Sorry to derail the thread. :megalol:

Hmmm... I am, let's just say, Politely Sceptical of the whole "e"-sports concept. I suppose my idea of a sport (and indeed, sportsmanship) is rather different.

 

 

However, seeing as you brought it up: Regardless of whether one can, or whether one could historically, is "flying" with a reduced (internal) fuel load Sporting?

 

(Sporting = fair & gentlemanly conduct, a concern for the spirit of the competition rather than just winning.)

I think it is sporting, so long as all players have an equal opportunity to employ the same technique and the technique is not prohibited in the multiplayer event. So long as you play within the constraints of the rules and regulations of the given competition, any advantage you can obtain as a competitor, without breaking the rules and regulations of your sport, is fair play and sporting. Where there are no rules and regulations, I guess you have to look at norms of game play. Using reduced fuel loadouts is a common practice, accepted and endorsed by some of the most highly skilled and accomplished competitive flight simmers. Not all flight simmers use that approach or endorse that approach, but it is a well established and generally accepted practice in our hobby. There are alternative established accepted practices. For me, I prefer fuel load out locks and so do a number of flight simmers, but our preference for one approach over the other does not establish that an alternative generally accepted practice, certainly dating back many years before my time, and employed by many, if not all, of the most accomplished competitive flight simmers, is somehow wrong or unsportsmanlike. We have a number of ways of doing things. Since there are a number of well established generally accepted alternative approaches to how to handle fuel loads, it all comes down to a matter of personal preference and not sportsmanship, IMHO. :thumbup: MJ

Hmmm... I am, let's just say, Politely Sceptical of the whole "e"-sports concept. I suppose my idea of a sport (and indeed, sportsmanship) is rather different.

 

 

However, seeing as you brought it up: Regardless of whether one can, or whether one could historically, is "flying" with a reduced (internal) fuel load Sporting?

 

(Sporting = fair & gentlemanly conduct, a concern for the spirit of the competition rather than just winning.)

It is the future "blood doping" of professional flight simming!

See Josh, one day when CNN is interviewing some hot shot virtual stick about the "fuel scandle" while montages of Lance Armstrong flash in the background; you can link this thread and tell them it has been a controversy stemming from the earliest days!

It is the future "blood doping" of professional flight simming!

 

See Josh, one day when CNN is interviewing some hot shot virtual stick about the "fuel scandle" while montages of Lance Armstrong flash in the background; you can link this thread and tell them it has been a controversy stemming from the earliest days!

Heh heh! :megalol:

Hit the nail on the head, Crump.

No, lets get back to your earlier post were I am the guy raining all over your parade.

 

All these things such as "The notion that people who enjoy these things are somehow less "study-simmers" blah,blah, blah.....

 

Are your own creations. Stop attributing this to me, please.

 

I never said a thing about it.

 

From my first post

You 100% did call it a "a gamey addition as a slider". Page 7 of this thread http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147256&page=7\

Not to mention you completely ignored the fact that I stated that these different settings could both be in the game, and open for the mission creators to use in which ever way they saw fit. One does not have to exist, and completely take the place of another.

You 100% did call it a "a gamey addition as a slider". Page 7 of this thread http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147256&page=7\

 

Not to mention you completely ignored the fact that I stated that these different settings could both be in the game, and open for the mission creators to use in which ever way they saw fit. One does not have to exist, and completely take the place of another.

Ok I did say it. In context that is after having to argue for pages with guys who want to justify it their game feature as something that was historically common place. It was not and why 4 years earlier, DCS made the decision not to include it because it was not historically accurate.

The topic was not whether it should be added. That was simply a mute point and not under discussion.

2 pages later you state:

So again I'm not saying I want a slider, I'm just saying it doesn't seem to me like an outlandish ask to polish a feature that's already in the game.

 

 

So I will make this as clear as I possibly can. What I WHAT is to have three or so preset convergence distance, and pattern choices to choose from in the load-out screen that is functional for both single, and multiplayer. Not a slider. If a mod came out that helped me get these things that would be welcomed on my machine.

 

Edit: Also, thank you for the warm welcome.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2488967&postcount=89

You and I seem to be in complete agreement on page 9!!!!

:doh:

Fuel or ammunition convergence on a slider is not a feature that was historically correct. The aircraft load configuration is dictated by standard loads to do a job. Operations dictates the flight plan and loadouts. It is not the pilot's whim. You review it and sign off taking joint responsibility. Any changes have to be approved and you better have very good reasons for it.

Professional pilots have a lot in common with the NASA chimp astronauts or Soviet Space program Dogs. You are monkey in the cockpit there to press the buttons to get a job done.

We are not talking about reality here. It is a game. Features which increase others enjoyment of that game I fully support as ED development can get too.

This is niche hobby. We need players to support it to get the things we want.

As I understand DCS and why I bought the modules....they want to deliver as much cockpit immersion as possible on a home computer. That is great and I get tickled every time I "fly" and find myself thinking and doing the same or similar control inputs/thought process I do in reality.

Many of the customers of DCS are here because of that same experience. They want to preserve the immersion as do I.

It is fun for me. Having to select and plan for "minimum fuel every flight" is not a thought process I go thru as pilot. In fact, if you declare it on the radio to ATC (Minimum fuel is a required ATC notification for any pilot) then you will be filling out paperwork to explain why you got in that situation. It immediately takes me out of that cockpit immersion and ruins it.

If players want these features that ruin cockpit immersion I support it. Just do not rain on others parade because I am not raining on yours!

And do not justify something as historical just to get a feature added that is not how airplanes work!

:)

But Crumpp you absolutely ARE raining on others parade! When you say "gamey" slider, and think that certain features that may take you out of the immersion, would also take everyone else out of the immersion, and that is just not true.

Once again on page 9 I was in agreement that that would be an appropriate solution in a 100% historical based mission. Again that does not mean that you can't have it the other way where people could adjust their guns how they wanted. I'm curious do you think that pilots altering their convergences to be shorter would be exploiting that feature the same way you think pilots who take less fuel are exploiting that feature?

I'm curious do you think that pilots altering their convergences to be shorter would be exploiting that feature the same way you think pilots who take less fuel are exploiting that feature?

No...

... because we have evidence that this was done in the period we are simulating. This isn't a free-for-all dakka-fest, as far as I recall. I believe this game has aspirations to be an "authentic recreation of WW2 air combat", thus meaning that anything that wasn't the done thing back then should not available to do now. (Except maybe in single player for experimentation).

As I have said before, if *anyone* can show me evidence that real WW2 pilots (rather than gamers) tweeked their fuel (and/or ammunition) levels to improve performance then I will be more than happy to revise my position. NB: I am not talking about dropping external tanks, or not filling auxiliary tanks; I mean evidence that the amount of fuel in the main tanks was altered for tactical reason in the early 40s.

No...

 

... because we have evidence that this was done in the period we are simulating. This isn't a free-for-all dakka-fest, as far as I recall. I believe this game has aspirations to be an "authentic recreation of WW2 air combat", thus meaning that anything that wasn't the done thing back then should not available to do now. (Except maybe in single player for experimentation).

No, that would only be the case if DCS was aiming to be an "authentic recreation of WW2 air combat and nothing else"

Simulation isn't limited to history. I think that's the source of the divide here, or a big part of it. DCS is certainly not limited to WWII so the options in DCS as a whole should certainly not be limited to what was available in WWII.

No, that would only be the case if DCS was aiming to be an "authentic recreation of WW2 air combat and nothing else"

 

Simulation isn't limited to history...

No...

... but it should still be accurate to it. Otherwise it is no longer simulation, but speculation.

Whilst I concur that DCS is not limited to WW2, the majority of the discussion in relation on this thread has been related to WW2 aircraft, particularly the P-51 - hence my quotation.

However, in fairness, I shall open my question up: can *anyone* show me evidence that real combat pilots (rather than gamers or real-life pylon racers) tweeked their fuel (and/or ammunition) levels to improve their performance? NB: I am not talking about dropping external tanks, or not filling auxiliary tanks; I mean evidence that the amount of fuel in the main tanks was altered for tactical reasons in the appropriate time period for the aircraft discussed.

There we go. :)

I don't have the reference at hand but I recall that during the battle of Britain spit pilot would take very limited amount of fuel to get max performance againt the 109s.

I guess that doesn't cover your time frame but still a good example.

No...

 

... but it should still be accurate to it. Otherwise it is no longer simulation, but speculation.

That should also include the airfield conditions and normal hazards faced by genuine WW 2 pilots when taking off or landing:

Dust (lots of it on Normandy's airfields)

Mud

Ice and slush

Snow

The models we fly haven't been put through the stresses and strains of flying off front-line airfields, getting covered in dust or mud as they take-off, or being serviced in the open with no shelter. We have the luxury of flying fully serviced, spotlessly clean, well maintained aircraft off dust and mud free tarmac runways, without needing someone on the wing to direct us because the taxi strips are narrow and visibility limited. We don't face the hazards of landing on soft, possibly water-logged or snow-bound airstrips whilst exhausted after facing air-to-air combat.

The point being, there's still a long, long way to go before DCS will be truly, historically accurate and not merely "speculative".

No, that would only be the case if DCS was aiming to be an "authentic recreation of WW2 air combat and nothing else"

 

Simulation isn't limited to history. I think that's the source of the divide here, or a big part of it. DCS is certainly not limited to WWII so the options in DCS as a whole should certainly not be limited to what was available in WWII.

Exactly this! Thank you Exorcet I think you nailed it. I see no harm in being able to enforce historical standards in one srever, while allowing pilots to try different things in another.

No...

 

... but it should still be accurate to it. Otherwise it is no longer simulation, but speculation.

A simulation isn't a simulation, if it is simulating a non-historical scenario instead of a historical one? Are you even trying to make a modicum of sense?

Simulation /= historical reenactment

This is beyond ridiculous. There's also quite the straw-man being used: the idea that our position hinges upon the point of whether or not the fuel slider is historical. I made it clear since the beginning that the basis of my argument was never that real pilots regularly chose to take low fuel loads, because they generally didn't.

A simulation isn't a simulation, if it is simulating a non-historical scenario instead of a historical one? Are you even trying to make a modicum of sense?

 

Simulation /= historical reenactment

 

This is beyond ridiculous. Crumpp, you're now making a straw-man. I made it clear since the beginning that the basis of my argument was never that real pilots regularly chose to take low fuel loads, because they generally didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am not "Crumpp", I am not particularly interested in *your* argument per se, and I am certainly not solely debating this issue with your good self.

My point, which may have been missed, is that if a real pilot (from the appropriate period) did not or could not do X, should we as simmers be able to do it? And if so, should we be able to only do it when sandboxing and experimenting, or also when flying against others? And, if so, does this have a (negative?) effect on the fidelity of the sim?

This is a query, a thought exercise, and an invitation to debate. I feel some of you are taking it a little too personally though...

I am not "Crumpp"

Fine. You two are difficult to tell apart in this thread. I've edited my post; the point itself stands.