Rearm & Refuel Tutorial. [Archive] - The Air Tactical Assault Group - Team Fusion

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)

Jul-10-2014, 05:46

Can someone explain the appeal of the re-arm / re-fuel?

Is the only appeal the fact that it has an effect on stats? Is the only real benefit the fact that you can add more kills to the same "sortie" in your stats?
If that's the case.. then it seems to be to be an un-histocial feature, an artificial manipulation of the flight records - one could presumably fly 10 sorties and collect 20 kills (if one was good enough pilot), yet they would all show as a single mission on the stats...

OR is there something more that I'm missing here..?

I've heard people talk about how it is "more" realistic than re-spawning. But is that true?
A fuel truck magically appears next to you and refuels your aircraft, but it only does it if you have some fuel and ammo remaining.
You don't actually have to taxi to any kind of safe area to do this.
The time-delay bears no relationship to any kind of historical norm for aircraft and pilot turn around.

I personally never use it. Once I've landed, I res-pawn in a new aircraft. The amount of time required to warm the engine up and taxi out of a hanger and into wind is usually about 2 minutes or so anyways.

Vlerkies

Jul-10-2014, 08:24

Can someone explain the appeal of the re-arm / re-fuel?

<RR
your plane will be ready in 2.5 minutes

*go for a pee*

<RR75
ýour plane will be ready in 4.3 minutes

*go refill your drink and get a snack*

Other than that I don't know.

ATAG_Bliss

Jul-10-2014, 08:30

ATAG_Bliss

Jul-10-2014, 08:37

After a long and successful sortie over England I am returning to my home field for rearming and refueling. This video features a nice descent, approach, and landing, followed by the rearm/refuel. Narration begins at the 4:50 and I explain everything necessary for using the rearm and refuel system on ATAG's server. I hope you find this useful!

Recorded flying a Bf-109E-3 on ATAG's Axis vs. Allies server using TF 4.312. As always, watch in HD!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FezP-ftXIpE

Nice video. Thank you!

ATAG_Septic

Jul-10-2014, 08:46

Can someone explain the appeal of the re-arm / re-fuel?

Is the only appeal the fact that it has an effect on stats? Is the only real benefit the fact that you can add more kills to the same "sortie" in your stats?

The appeal for me is to re-arm and re-fuel at a more convenient airfield than the type's home field. I've used it to to avoid having to fly a IIa twenty-five minutes to the front lines and also to meet up with bombers I intend to escort.

I can also understand how a feeling of acheivement can be garnered from maintaining one airframe intact over a number of sorties.

Septic.

Vlerkies

Jul-10-2014, 08:50

@phil

Edit: You also make an incorrect assumption about needing some ammo or fuel in order for refuel or rearm to work. It works just fine filling up an empty tank or empty ammo.

Maybe it changed and I dont know as I dont fly them, but for canon ammo in the E3/4 it was stated here once before that you needed at least 1 round in the canons for it to work?
Was that changed?

My only issue with rearm and refuel is once I was just taking off while the RAF were vulching Marques.
I got up and with some other 109's we made it known to them that they had overstayed their welcome in France and sent them packing.

So, I land again right away as I used quite a bit of ammo in delivering the above message.

I rearm ammo and then then try take off again, only to find my fuel levels have been zeroed. Thats a bit iffy as the tanks were full when I landed.

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-10-2014, 08:56

Several of the missions have the advanced Spitfires relegated only to the more distant airfields. If out of fuel or ammo it is far better to land and <rr at an airfield closer to the action than respawn in a brand new Spitfire of your choosing much farther away.

examples:

Battle of France: Spitfire 1a 100 octanes are only available at the distant Le Havre airfield, none to be had at the embattled northly airfields.

Crepon/Le Havre map: Spitfire 2a only available at Theville and Querque, none to be had at the embattled Crepon and Caen airfields

Sealion map: Spitfire 2a only available at inland airfields, none to be had at the embattled coastal airfields.

We RAF fighter boys are very glad to have the chance to retain our Spitfires close to the action provided we haven't sustained battle damage. :thumbsup:

Can someone explain the appeal of the re-arm / re-fuel?

Is the only appeal the fact that it has an effect on stats? Is the only real benefit the fact that you can add more kills to the same "sortie" in your stats?
If that's the case.. then it seems to be to be an un-histocial feature, an artificial manipulation of the flight records - one could presumably fly 10 sorties and collect 20 kills (if one was good enough pilot), yet they would all show as a single mission on the stats...

OR is there something more that I'm missing here..?

I've heard people talk about how it is "more" realistic than re-spawning. But is that true?
A fuel truck magically appears next to you and refuels your aircraft, but it only does it if you have some fuel and ammo remaining.
You don't actually have to taxi to any kind of safe area to do this.
The time-delay bears no relationship to any kind of historical norm for aircraft and pilot turn around.

I personally never use it. Once I've landed, I res-pawn in a new aircraft. The amount of time required to warm the engine up and taxi out of a hanger and into wind is usually about 2 minutes or so anyways.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)

Jul-10-2014, 09:09

@phil
Uh - the appeal is because you are in the same plane you started with just like what "historically" happened in real life.
If you care about refueling and rearming that same plane you'll also try and make sure to land your plane undamaged.
I don't really understand how you could possibly think getting in a new plane after every sortie is more "historical" than using your old one. Perhaps that's why you don't like it. I can assure you most pilots were assigned a single plane. The last thing they did was take a new one every single sortie.

OK, I think I see what you're getting at - Tell me if I've interpreted you correctly.

1. Allowing players to re-arm and re-fuel an UNDAMAGED aeroplane is really the key element here. The reason being because it provides an incentive to try and RTB with a fully functional machine, thus pushing player behavior in the direction of greater historicity.
2. When a player simply "re-spawns", he has to exercise some imagination to bridge the gap between where he-and-his aeroplane WAS a few seconds ago, and where they are now. By allowing players to remain within the same aircraft, they need not make this "leap" of believably (i.e. how did I magically go from "over there" to "over here"?).

Now, given that the RR feature is entirely voluntary; does that mean that players who chose to re-spawn, rather than "rr" are behaving in a less historical manner? Even if they are able, in their own mind, to "imagine" for a second that the aircraft they chose for their second sortie is "actually" the same aircraft they flew in their previous mission? (given that it has the same markings, and is the same type etc.....)

Incidentally, I'm entirely aware of the fact that, during WW2, pilot were, in most cases, assigned their own individual machines. They were also, however, assigned many other various things. They could not just pick any old airfield, or squadron. They would never jump in a bomber one day, and in a fighter the next. etc.. etc.. the list goes on and on. From a "historical" point of view, many of these things are JUST as important as whether or not the pilot was physically present in the same configuration of material parts the next time he was airborne, as the previous time. So, should we be looking to try and provide those kinds of optional features too? Would people be just as delighted to have the option of these kinds of self-imposed restraints?

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)

Jul-10-2014, 09:14

We RAF fighter boys are very glad to have the chance to retain our Spitfires close to the action provided we haven't sustained battle damage. :thumbsup:

Ah OK, I hadn't considered this.
Would this be the same as allowing a player who landed an aircraft of a specific type at any base to then be able to spawn ONCE in that type, at that base, or maybe even to them allow ONE instance of that type to be taken by another player at that base?

Are we talking here about a resource-supply feature?

This reason is entirely different, it seems to me, from what Bliss was describing in his previous post.

Which is partly why I ask the questions. It seems to me that the "rr" feature is valued for a variety of reasons - with different players assigning value it to it based on their own. I'd like to understand these reasons first. What, specifically, is it about the game/ experience that is being satisfied by the "rr" feature.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)

Jul-10-2014, 09:20

Uh -

Any particular reason you started the thread with "uh" ?

That expression is usually only used in spoken conversation, and it typically carries negative/ patronizing connotations.

ATAG_Bliss

Jul-10-2014, 09:37

Any particular reason you started the thread with "uh" ?

That expression is usually only used in spoken conversation, and it typically carries negative/ patronizing connotations.

I was baffled that you thought getting a new plane every single sortie was more historical than keeping your same plane like the real pilots did. So I started with "Uh" because I honestly couldn't believe you thought that was more historical when in fact, is the absolute opposite of historical accuracy.

And if you took the time to read and respond to the rest of what I said, instead of one word, I make that abundantly clear.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)

Jul-10-2014, 09:44

I was baffled that you thought getting a new plane every single sortie was more historical than keeping your same plane like the real pilots did. So I started with "Uh" because I honestly couldn't believe you thought that was more historical when in fact, is the absolute opposite of historical accuracy.

OK cheers for clarifying. I think my other response should cover the issue of "historicity".

And if you took the time to read and respond to the rest of what I said, instead of one word, I make that abundantly clear.

I did that, see a couple of posts up. If you took the time..... ;)

ATAG_Bliss

Jul-10-2014, 09:48

OK, I think I see what you're getting at - Tell me if I've interpreted you correctly.

1. Allowing players to re-arm and re-fuel an UNDAMAGED aeroplane is really the key element here. The reason being because it provides an incentive to try and RTB with a fully functional machine, thus pushing player behavior in the direction of greater historicity.
2. When a player simply "re-spawns", he has to exercise some imagination to bridge the gap between where he-and-his aeroplane WAS a few seconds ago, and where they are now. By allowing players to remain within the same aircraft, they need not make this "leap" of believably (i.e. how did I magically go from "over there" to "over here"?).

Now, given that the RR feature is entirely voluntary; does that mean that players who chose to re-spawn, rather than "rr" are behaving in a less historical manner? Even if they are able, in their own mind, to "imagine" for a second that the aircraft they chose for their second sortie is "actually" the same aircraft they flew in their previous mission? (given that it has the same markings, and is the same type etc.....)

Incidentally, I'm entirely aware of the fact that, during WW2, pilot were, in most cases, assigned their own individual machines. They were also, however, assigned many other various things. They could not just pick any old airfield, or squadron. They would never jump in a bomber one day, and in a fighter the next. etc.. etc.. the list goes on and on. From a "historical" point of view, many of these things are JUST as important as whether or not the pilot was physically present in the same configuration of material parts the next time he was airborne, as the previous time. So, should we be looking to try and provide those kinds of optional features too? Would people be just as delighted to have the option of these kinds of self-imposed restraints?

I believe everyone realizes they are playing a video game. So without replicating real life, a video game can never be 100% historically accurate. R and R is a feature they can choose to use or not use depending on how they wish to fly. For some people it adds immersion trying to keep thier same plane, sortie after sortie.

ATAG doesn't frown upon people for flying their own way within the rules. Nor are we going to make people fly a certain way because a small group of others don't think it's right.

ATAG_Bliss

Jul-10-2014, 09:57

OK cheers for clarifying. I think my other response should cover the issue of "historicity".

I did that, see a couple of posts up. If you took the time..... ;)

Then why did you ask the question if you already understood why I said it in the 1st place?

ATAG_Bliss

Jul-10-2014, 10:01

Maybe it changed and I dont know as I dont fly them, but for canon ammo in the E3/4 it was stated here once before that you needed at least 1 round in the canons for it to work?
Was that changed?

My only issue with rearm and refuel is once I was just taking off while the RAF were vulching Marques.
I got up and with some other 109's we made it known to them that they had overstayed their welcome in France and sent them packing.

So, I land again right away as I used quite a bit of ammo in delivering the above message.

I rearm ammo and then then try take off again, only to find my fuel levels have been zeroed. Thats a bit iffy as the tanks were full when I landed.

The old system (well over a year ago) required some fuel or ammo for the feature to work. This has been corrected for a while now. Empty tanks and ammo will still refuel and rearm now.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)

Jul-10-2014, 10:02

I believe everyone realizes they are playing a video game. So without replicating real life, a video game can never be 100% historically accurate. R and R is a feature they can choose to use or not use depending on how they wish to fly. For some people it adds immersion trying to keep thier same plane, sortie after sortie.

So then, let's discuss this adding of "immersion".
Let's say that I fly my aeroplane for a sortie and it does not get damaged. I land it press some buttons "<rr". A fuel truck appears and I wait at my computer for the 2.5 minutes. Then I decide I'm going to fly again. So now I'm I'm sitting in that aeroplane ready to start engine and prep for take off.
I have used the "same" plane twice. This was immersive.

Now, let's say I do the same, I fly my aeroplane for a sortie and it does not get damaged. I land it and "exit" the aircraft. Then a small amount of time later I look at a map, and decide I'm going to fly again. So I select that base and the same aircraft type as last time, with ALL the same markings and everything. In fact every single pixel and operating system is EXACTLY the same as the previous aircraft. Then I press a button and I'm sitting in that aeroplane ready to start engine and prep for for take off. This was immersive too... only I was looking at a "map" instead of an airfield during the waiting period. This was also immersive.

In either scenario, I could have "kept the same plane" for both sorties. There is merely an imaginative leap that is required to explain my spatial displacement (from cockpit at location A, to cockpit at location B) in the second scenario. Am I really immersion-deprived for choosing the second option? For me, the effort required to imagine that I am "in the same" aircraft is entirely negligible. I simply tell myself that it is the same aircraft (it does everything exactly the same way, after all) Which brings me right back to the initial question!

ATAG doesn't frown upon people for flying their own way within the rules. Nor are we going to make people fly a certain way because a small group of others don't think it's right.

Well yes.. this is well publicized and oft repeated. The voluntary nature of RR and/or Re-spawn is not in question here at all. At least not for me it's not.

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)

Jul-10-2014, 10:05

Then why did you ask the question if you already understood why I said it in the 1st place?

Either myself or you have completely misread something here in the thread. I cannot decipher to what question nor to what "it" you are referring.

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-10-2014, 10:12

Ah OK, I hadn't considered this.
Would this be the same as allowing a player who landed an aircraft of a specific type at any base to then be able to spawn ONCE in that type, at that base, or maybe even to them allow ONE instance of that type to be taken by another player at that base?

Are we talking here about a resource-supply feature?

This reason is entirely different, it seems to me, from what Bliss was describing in his previous post.

Which is partly why I ask the questions. It seems to me that the "rr" feature is valued for a variety of reasons - with different players assigning value it to it based on their own. I'd like to understand these reasons first. What, specifically, is it about the game/ experience that is being satisfied by the "rr" feature.

Everyone has their reasons, for me it's more like "all of the above". I like the fact that I can land at a friendly airfield away from home and tell them to rearm and refuel while I go for a slash. I also like the fact that I retain my Spitfire if that particular model is not available otherwise. I don't give a whit about my stats since they're lousy anyway, but I do get a personal satisfaction if I can fly three or four successful sorties in the same aircraft. For me, that is a hard accomplishment which adds greatly to my enjoyment of the online experience in an extremely dangerous virtual environment. I feel drained after an intensive 2.5 hours of that kind of action in my self-allocated aircraft, I can't imagine the exhaustion of the real BoB pilots doing the same on Sept 15, 1940.

ATAG_Bliss

Jul-10-2014, 10:17

So then, let's discuss this adding of "immersion".
Let's say that I fly my aeroplane for a sortie and it does not get damaged. I land it press some buttons "<rr". A fuel truck appears and I wait at my computer for the 2.5 minutes. Then I decide I'm going to fly again. So now I'm I'm sitting in that aeroplane ready to start engine and prep for take off.
I have used the "same" plane twice. This was immersive.

Now, let's say I do the same, I fly my aeroplane for a sortie and it does not get damaged. I land it and "exit" the aircraft. Then a small amount of time later I look at a map, and decide I'm going to fly again. So I select that base and the same aircraft type as last time, with ALL the same markings and everything. In fact every single pixel and operating system is EXACTLY the same as the previous aircraft. Then I press a button and I'm sitting in that aeroplane ready to start engine and prep for for take off. This was immersive too... only I was looking at a "map" instead of an airfield during the waiting period. This was also immersive.

In either scenario, I could have "kept the same plane" for both sorties. There is merely an imaginative leap that is required to explain my spatial displacement (from cockpit at location A, to cockpit at location B) in the second scenario. Am I really immersion-deprived for choosing the second option? For me, the effort required to imagine that I am "in the same" aircraft is entirely negligible. I simply tell myself that it is the same aircraft (it does everything exactly the same way, after all) Which brings me right back to the initial question!

Well yes.. this is well publicized and oft repeated. The voluntary nature of RR and/or Re-spawn is not in question here at all. At least not for me it's not.

Not at all. When you get a new plane. It's just that, new. Cliffs of Dover has wear built into the airframe, the engine etc, so a new plane isn't the same as an old plane that has been refueled and rearmed at all.

There's damage calculations going on behind the scenes for the life of your plane, engine, etc. So even if you don't have sustainable damage to your aircraft that can be physically seen, it is there and accumulating the longer a plane is in service.

So it's not even remotely close to the same. It's just one more thing that adds to the immersion in cliffs combined with R&R. As you get to try and nurse that same airframe as long as you can.

I just wonder why why you have completely hijacked this thread, a tutorial thread on how to perform R&R and turned it into your soapbox instead. Can you maybe start a new thread next time instead of ruining what the OP was about?

ATAG_Bliss

Jul-10-2014, 10:22

Either myself or you have completely misread something here in the thread. I cannot decipher to what question nor to what "it" you are referring.

You responded to what I wrote, then came back after understanding what I wrote to start another post asking why I said a particular word in that post you responded to in the 1st place.

Then you had the audacity to think I was patronizing you. Again, why are you so hell bent on ruining this thread. If you want to start a general discussion on refuel and rearm please do so, but this thread has long been off the tracks for the tutorial the OP was about in the 1st place.

SoW Reddog

Jul-10-2014, 10:24

Maybe someone with admin permissions could split the thread so we don't have to read O/T stuff? Please? :thumbsup:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)

Jul-10-2014, 10:25

Then you had the audacity to think I was patronizing you. Again, why are you so hell bent on ruining this thread. If you want to start a general discussion on refuel and rearm please do so, but this thread has long been off the tracks for the tutorial the OP was about in the 1st place.

Blimey Bliss... that's quite a forceful response.

New thread on the way. Apologies to the OP.

3./JG51_Heiden

Jul-10-2014, 10:33

Oh wow, I didn't intend to start any controvercies! Let's be friends? :thumbsup:

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)

Jul-10-2014, 10:36

ignore... accidental paste

ATAG_Snapper

Jul-10-2014, 10:37

Oh wow, I didn't intend to start any controvercies! Let's be friends? :thumbsup:

How DARE you, sir!!!! :-P

Seriously, if PhilStyle starts a separate thread I'll move the related posts over to it. (And remove this one! :D)

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)

Jul-10-2014, 10:39

Oh wow, I didn't intend to start any controvercies! Let's be friends? :thumbsup:

lol. No, no. My fualt.
I've moved the continued thoughts elsewhere. Sorry for sidetracking things in this particular thread.

How DARE you, sir!!!! :-P
Seriously, if PhilStyle starts a separate thread I'll move the related posts over to it. (And remove this one! :D)

all good snapper, I've posted something over in a more appropriate location;
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11832&p=129301#post129301

9./JG52 Ziegler

Jul-10-2014, 11:11

I have a quick question about the RR function. The last two times I attempted an <rr100 the 2.5 minute message popped and the truck appeared but then would not despawn? I waited well past the 5 min mark and still the truck just sat there. Tried again and got a in service message. Anyone else run into this where the truck just stays?

3./JG51_Heiden

Jul-10-2014, 12:24

ATAG_Colander

Jul-10-2014, 12:30

There might be a bug in the "time telling" part.
The time it takes is calculated as the biggest of rearming (constant time) and refueling (depending on how much fuel you already have against what you are asking for).

If your tank was empty and you asked for 100%, then it will take a lot more than 2.5 minutes.

AKA_Recon

Jul-11-2014, 09:18

ATAG_Dave

Jul-11-2014, 10:00

I had a time the truck came out, etc... but then I was never able to restart my engine.

I assumed I did something wrong ?

It was mentioned not being able to rearm with bombs. That would be great, any chance that can be added at some point (when time of course!!!)

Thanks!

This might be because sometimes the first <RR empties the fuel tank and you have to do it again to get it to refill it....seems to vary by map/mission

AKA_Recon

Jul-11-2014, 11:00

This might be because sometimes the first <RR empties the fuel tank and you have to do it again to get it to refill it....seems to vary by map/mission

ah - ok - good to know! thanks

3./JG51_Heiden

Jul-11-2014, 11:05

Also Recon if you use anything other than RR100 I have found there to be erroneous results. You might have gotten ammo with no fuel, no ammo and fuel, or neither. I just use <RR100 and it has the best results consistently.

ATAG_EvangelusE

Jul-11-2014, 14:05

I find RR usefull for the Mission in France where Spit 1a 100oct is only available at Le havre and also to balance out my sortie Stats for those instances when I join the server but the map rolls or times out shortly after I joined. Generally, I prefer to respawn, especially having been PK'd whilst RR in progress.

I also notice that some damage sustained doesn't prevent the use of RR but the ac's performance seems degraded to me and sometimes I pull the trigger and no ammo burst for a second or so.

9./JG52 Ziegler

Jul-11-2014, 17:08

Very interesting! I have never experienced this before. Has it happened once or does it happen all the time?

It has happened twice. Both times I was pretty low on fuel so maybe Colander is correct. Now that I think of it, both times were also on the same map. I sat and waited for 10min the second time just to see if the truck would ever despawn and after the 10min I punched out. Once at LaHarve and once at another field, same map.

9./JG52 Reinhart

Jul-12-2014, 02:41

Everyone has their reasons, for me it's more like "all of the above". I like the fact that I can land at a friendly airfield away from home and tell them to rearm and refuel while I go for a slash. I also like the fact that I retain my Spitfire if that particular model is not available otherwise. I don't give a whit about my stats since they're lousy anyway, but I do get a personal satisfaction if I can fly three or four successful sorties in the same aircraft. For me, that is a hard accomplishment which adds greatly to my enjoyment of the online experience in an extremely dangerous virtual environment. I feel drained after an intensive 2.5 hours of that kind of action in my self-allocated aircraft, I can't imagine the exhaustion of the real BoB pilots doing the same on Sept 15, 1940.

For example (as you stated before) If I'm flying the Battle of Dunkirk map, I would want to RR at a base that isn't being harassed by pesky Spits or Hurris so I will RR at -information invalid- (I don't wanna give secrets away ;) ) then I can refuel and rearm and be right in the action in a moments notice if need be. That's really the beauty of RR for me. That and being able to explore new airfields you couldn't before! :D