Realistic repairs option for future versions?

I'm one of those extreme reality nuts so i think it would really cool if DCS could add a realistic repairs option that would simulate real repair times if you take battle damage and say need an engie swap or airframe repairs or whatever even if it means waiting days if you take to much battle damage. Plus a full indepth log book that records everything.

Then the airframe or other componenets replaced would look as if they didn't originally belong on that aircraft. Wear and tear would be cool and would add so much more to the reality of not getting dead. The random failures option is the first step. I know waiting days could not be fun for some but like i said im ok with it.

Realistic repair times...

Well lets see even a simple tire change (MLG tires, nose tires are quick) takes about an hour (that's including taking care of documentation because you can't even get a new tire until the job is loaded into IMDS), an engine change although according to the TO can be accomplished in 8 hours (that's remove, install, and operational checks/rigging) takes more like 12 to 16. Some other failures take days and some take weeks. Something as simple as finding a nose gear door hinge's hole has been rounded out, because of parts issues, could be down for a week or more (we actually found this issue Saturday, the part is going to be manufactured at depot, it will take at least a week probably more for the part to even get here).

Although I am all for realism and am a perfectionist concerning the systems operating like they do RW this is one option I don't want.

Yikes! A fuel leak after the aircraft has been shot up takes about a week or more to fix, depending on the location of the leak.

I'm glad to see you swing by paulrkiii you have lot of knowledge and I use your 2.2 checklist. Being down weeks would be rough. At least visual repairs would be nice. I guess it's the same old question, how real do you wanna get.

While some aspects might be appealing. People would soon get fed up of having to fly missions with some systems on the aircraft being unserviceable from the start, which tends to happen quite often irl.

As Snoopy said above, this is one aspect of reality I'm glad isn't modelled.

Fast easy repairs can breed bad habits. I didn't think about people getting tired of waiting.

This might be a dumb question... but...

Does each A10 have only one pilot who flies it? Is it sort of like, this is YOUR plane? Or do multiple pilots fly the same plane? If a particular plane is down for a few weeks, does that pilot just not fly? Or does he get a "loaner"?

Is this generally true for military aircraft? That they are "assigned" to one individual?

I only ask because it seems more efficient use of resources to have multiple pilots fly the same plane to combat fatigue. For example, if the plane is needed for day missions, then night missions, then again in the morning... would make sense to rotate pilots in/out of the same plane. The way, I assume, it works in commercial airliners.

Yikes! A fuel leak after the aircraft has been shot up takes about a week or more to fix, depending on the location of the leak.

At least...you've to to repair the skin, whatever was damaged in the fuel tank, cure for any sealant used, leak check, ops check....you would have to ops check all hydraulic and flight control components that run through that area to make sure they weren't damanged....and on and on :D

At least...you've to to repair the skin, whatever was damaged in the fuel tank, cure for any sealant used, leak check, ops check....you would have to ops check all hydraulic and flight control components that run through that area to make sure they weren't damanged....and on and on :D

Nightmare :fear:

This might be a dumb question... but...

 

Does each A10 have only one pilot who flies it? Is it sort of like, this is YOUR plane? Or do multiple pilots fly the same plane? If a particular plane is down for a few weeks, does that pilot just not fly? Or does he get a "loaner"?

 

Is this generally true for military aircraft? That they are "assigned" to one individual?

 

I only ask because it seems more efficient use of resources to have multiple pilots fly the same plane to combat fatigue. For example, if the plane is needed for day missions, then night missions, then again in the morning... would make sense to rotate pilots in/out of the same plane. The way, I assume, it works in commercial airliners.

Pilots fly whatever aircraft they are told to. They may have their name on the side of one jet on the squadron in some cases, but they will rarely end up flying that aircraft.

Pilots fly whatever aircraft they are told to. They may have their name on the side of one jet on the squadron in some cases, but they will rarely end up flying that aircraft.

That is EXACTLY the case... I worked maintenance for 17 years... 2 years F-111's, 9 on F-4 E & G (Wild Weasel's), and the rest on F-16's... SELDOM did the pilot's fly the bird with their name on it... with one exception... the Squadron C/O... He usually had his own bird.... but when he wasn't flying it, somebody was. :yes::thumbup:

That is EXACTLY the case... I worked maintenance for 17 years... 2 years F-111's, 9 on F-4 E & G (Wild Weasel's), and the rest on F-16's... SELDOM did the pilot's fly the bird with their name on it... with one exception... the Squadron C/O... He usually had his own bird.... but when he wasn't flying it, somebody was. :yes::thumbup:

I thought in the US pilots did have their own planes, so whats the point of putting your name on something thats not "yours"? I suspect pilots did have their own during WW2 and the tradition remained.

I'll also point out that all names, to include the DCC/ACC, are removed from aircraft when in combat zones anyway, as a result of the F-117A that got shot down over Bosnia where the media talked about the pilot as if he were dead, putting huge stress on the family.

And the guy who was flying that plane wasn't even the one whose name was on the side :)

God, realistic repair times, you guys imagine that? Someone call Super, we really need to MICAP this thing!

This is something that i can only imagine to make sense in a dynamic campaign that includes resource management. I don't see any gain at this point.

They should at least give the option to turn off the 3 minutes new aircraft respawn.

God, realistic repair times, you guys imagine that? Someone call Super, we really need to MICAP this thing!

With realistic avionics guys redballing your stupid problems that are mostly your fault anyway, and angrily swapping out an LRU because you're too whiny to just take it :D

They should at least give the option to turn off the 3 minutes new aircraft respawn.

Why?

Radio option might be good. Just like putting the ladder up and down, you have to call Ground Crew in order to get repaired.

IRL you would abandon your jet on the ramp, hand it over to the groundcrew. You would then head to the intelligence officer for a debrief and then either to the crewroom for rations or the Bosses office for a bollocking.

You might then replan for another flight. Having said that I have returned a U/S jet and signed out another, legged it over to the aircraft and strapped in. Prob took me about ... 3 mins . whoa ...spooky.

What I think would be rather interesting is if it was possible to track the visual impacts of damage and repairs.

Basically when things are damaged and repair or rebuilt, they never look quite the same as they did before, and if you could track this, and display the deltas, over time and use every players' plane's personal appearance would diverge, hopefully enough to disrupt the clone factor.

I'll also point out that all names, to include the DCC/ACC, are removed from aircraft when in combat zones anyway, as a result of the F-117A that got shot down over Bosnia where the media talked about the pilot as if he were dead, putting huge stress on the family.

 

And the guy who was flying that plane wasn't even the one whose name was on the side :)

VERY true... I forgot they do that now.

Welcome to the world of instant news... :huh:

It would be great if a dialog or new window popped up showing you the damage sustained. You could then choose what should be fixed with an associated time next to it. This way if you have only a flat tire, instead of a totally busted plane, it would be shorter in time (I know, not real world) and gets you more involved instead of just shutting off the engine. It could add the mechanics side to the sim where you learn more about the systems involved, persay.

This is something that i can only imagine to make sense in a dynamic campaign that includes resource management. I don't see any gain at this point.

My thought exactly.

One of the things that IL-2's DC did right (for all it's other crappiness) was that it actually had some resource management elements (though you didn't get to lord over them). Losing wingment in one mission could mean you had less of them available the next time simply because there weren't planes enough to fly more. This was a bit shoddily implemented from a gameplay perspective though - if you select an "interesting" plane that isn't well known, odds were it wasn't in great supply. This meant that even though "my" squadron on the Finland campaign has rediculously good results, it eventually became unplayable because we'd get sent out as two-ship against 8+ fighters with a mission to kill their 8+ bomber buddies, with the DC not compensating through inserting AI from other squadrons.

Of course, it is possible to approximate all of this today in an online campaign that is well organized, but it would require a lot of manual work. But for SP and in campaign, we'd need a fully fledged DC before we can even think about this as strictly useful. (It could still be implemented into campaigns through giving munition stocks and replenishment levels in a campaign file and restricting mission planner accordingly, but this only covers munitions, not repairs and airframes which are more deeply rooted into the architecture.)

I wouldn't mind it as part of a DC - in fact if the DC is well made I'd absolutely love it. But I doubt whether the rewards are worth the expense in both money and time required to make it happen. :(

I'd love to see a visual repair(and maybe rearm as well) in the future version.