FM changes ?

Who hurt you? What proof do you have where the pilot is turning on the batteries and running through procedures while the jet is getting a whole rod shoved on its side?

 

Do you even apply common sense before running after "muh proof" defense?

 

Such a stereotypical response. If you do not know anything and cannot keep cool in debates, please refrain from responding.

 

Either add value to your response or dont answer. There are plenty other threads for you to ask people for proof on.

 

My main question is still, if we have artifical time added to somewhat add fake delay because it is a time consuming procedure (Again, I am talking about adding fuel probe), then why allow players to power on the systems. Is doing so realistic or safe?

 

If you get annoyed easily, please don't bother replying. I won't lose any sleep not knowing.

mmmmm good talk for nothing cuz i told u what i do and u said unrealistic so i asked what is unrealistic in that u are the one who said that what i said is unrealistic

( do u have a proof that what we are doing is unrealistic ? ) i dont understand u honestly if my startup procedure is wrong then why JF-17 is flying ?? other than that u are just love to type a lot

mmmmm good talk for nothing cuz i told u what i do and u said unrealistic so i asked what is unrealistic in that u are the one who said that what i said is unrealistic

 

( do u have a proof that what we are doing is unrealistic ? ) i dont understand u honestly if my startup procedure is wrong then why JF-17 is flying ?? other than that u are just love to type a lot

Alright. It is clear you failed to follow the conversation. You have also provided no real answer to my original question and instead added your own odd questions. This will cause further confusion instead of clarification. Please stop replying to me. I ask nicely. :)

Alright. It is clear you failed to follow the conversation. You have also provided no real answer to my original question and instead added your own odd questions. This will cause further confusion instead of clarification. Please stop replying to me. I ask nicely. :)

so if i didn't u will insult me ?? good to know what kind of person u are yes i will stop talking not cuz u asked cuz i will not drop down to your level of talking

end of talking to u

No TB the way I see it

It could either be unrealistic becuase they never start up that way(procedure), or realistic in that pilots may occasionally do mixed around start up

Or it’s unrealistic if it’s not possible in real life(technically possible), in which case there would have to be some reason starting the plane without the engine wouldn’t work

Depends on your point of view or you view realism as procedure or technicality. Technically it should be possible.

Now I personally think anyone in their right mind who wanted to change the AAR probe in real life would have ground crew do it the second they are on the jet if it’s not done before. It’s only 30 seconds in game. You have to turn on batt and gens, comms tacan MSL a few AAP buttons the UFCP dials(three of them) the two engine control switches idle the throttle and only then are you ready to start engine. If doing that leaves too long of a time for you in between finishing that and the 30 seconds to change the probe not sure there is anything we can say.

I guess what I mean is we can’t say if it’s realistic or unrealistic, the proof/disproof is the same on both sides, we don’t know. But do pilots out of operational necessity sometimes do abbreviated or changed up start ups? I’m sure when there’s an operational necessity, like an unexpected occasion to change fuel probe, a lot of pilots would be willing to change that start up as long as it’s safe and it all works. We can’t say either way, and I don’t think realistic or unrealistic really describes what’s going on, it’s a matter of if what you want to simulate is procedure or control of the systems

Unless we interview a real pilot we won’t find out either way. But for me personally we already have nearly instant re arm, I’m not too concerned and if I really need to do it it’s only thirty seconds. I personally don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility and reality despite there being no real world evidence about this specific plane and topic, but I don’t see why it would be much different then others, obviously that’s just my opinion

I'd guess the aircraft are prepped before the pilots even get out there. The pilots aren't going to show up and ask "hey - I want 2x Mk-83 and remove the refuel probe".

That stuff will be handled by the mission planners in advance, and the aircraft will be readied before the pilot even shows up.

I'd guess the aircraft are prepped before the pilots even get out there. The pilots aren't going to show up and ask "hey - I want 2x Mk-83 and remove the refuel probe".

 

That stuff will be handled by the mission planners in advance, and the aircraft will be readied before the pilot even shows up.

Yeah, I think what we have is a good compromise. There’s no way we can have everything realistic and have options at the same time, but I can understand why Terrorban would prefer it relatively instant, just like how our re arm and repair times are arbitrary. It’s a limitation for the sake of the game that not everyone is going to agree with as part of a study sim

No TB the way I see it

 

It could either be unrealistic becuase they never start up that way(procedure), or realistic in that pilots may occasionally do mixed around start up

 

Or it’s unrealistic if it’s not possible in real life(technically possible), in which case there would have to be some reason starting the plane without the engine wouldn’t work

 

Depends on your point of view or you view realism as procedure or technicality. Technically it should be possible.

 

Now I personally think anyone in their right mind who wanted to change the AAR probe in real life would have ground crew do it the second they are on the jet if it’s not done before. It’s only 30 seconds in game. You have to turn on batt and gens, comms tacan MSL a few AAP buttons the UFCP dials(three of them) the two engine control switches idle the throttle and only then are you ready to start engine. If doing that leaves too long of a time for you in between finishing that and the 30 seconds to change the probe not sure there is anything we can say.

 

I guess what I mean is we can’t say if it’s realistic or unrealistic, the proof/disproof is the same on both sides, we don’t know. But do pilots out of operational necessity sometimes do abbreviated or changed up start ups? I’m sure when there’s an operational necessity, like an unexpected occasion to change fuel probe, a lot of pilots would be willing to change that start up as long as it’s safe and it all works. We can’t say either way, and I don’t think realistic or unrealistic really describes what’s going on, it’s a matter of if what you want to simulate is procedure or control of the systems

 

Unless we interview a real pilot we won’t find out either way. But for me personally we already have nearly instant re arm, I’m not too concerned and if I really need to do it it’s only thirty seconds. I personally don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility and reality despite there being no real world evidence about this specific plane and topic, but I don’t see why it would be much different then others, obviously that’s just my opinion

You make a valid point. I was initialy confused because It said that engines needed to be tunred off for the probe to be installed/removed. I was waiting for the probe to be removed before I even began my procedures. It never came to me that starting everything except the engines was acceptable.

Once I discovered this was possible, it made me curious why is that extra step is even a thing if it does not even add or remove anything from the simulation experience, just an extra options among startup procedure.

I remember reading some key advertisement points on this plane where they were boasting that this plane can be serviced in 5 minutes and be on its way again for second mission, similar to what swedish jets are popular for. If we go by that claim then it might not be too unrealistic to expect this approach.

Since I enjoy the level of detail Deka adds in every little function, this one seems to stick out. This is why I was wondering if this was an "artistic" choice by developers or an actual aircraft capability.

I am even less bothered by the probe being on by default after discovering that I can get rid of it during the startup stages without noticing delay. It only takes maximum of 3 minutes to start this plane if we exclude the INS alignment steps and all tests. I would not recommend skipping on INS Alignment though, or else the instruments will act like that popular dubbed J-10 "dogfight" training video. :lol: