Partly yes. But the last to hit the flaming wreck without a wing still gets all the score for it, so it's possible to hold back and shoot at it after the actual gunner already sees that he 'got his man', with no risk to the real gunner. Finding who caused the most damage and, especially, bringing the plane to a critical point, should be the basis for kills. Shared kills is also acceptable, as was done in real life.

The startup procedure was interesting (even though I have not even read it all, I saved it, because I love learning how things worked in reality). In the other thread someone mentioned that you tend to be a bit too verbose and write a lot of text, and it is true (I used to be exactly like that back in the day - I saw it as an accomplishment. Problem was, people did not read or reply to them because they required a lot of time and effort to read and reply to in an appropriate way. I since have tried to learn (half-assed) the art of saying as much as possible with as few words as possible. :D When I see some of your very long posts, I think "I want to read, and reply to all that, but it's so much I'll come back to it later when I'm more awake etc". Sometimes that is so late I forgot about it.

Yes, we can have realistic everything in SoW for sure, people can handle it. Even if we don't. The theme I am talking about though is how to encourage allowing a wider range of aids being used coexisting on a single server, for everyone's benefit, not how to set up one's controls to handle max realism.

You are completely correct. In particular some systems cannot give an advantage to control manually (such as stuff related to fuel system) and only detracts from scanning the skies. However, there are exceptions. Many of the other aids can in fact give a disadvantage to the person employing them compared to a competent person doing it manually, in terms of aircraft performance and flight dynamics.

The score and rank assignments based on these things are meant to further encourage and compensate for any differences.




On servers that allow any kind of modding, yes, there can be cheating.

Only some servers (one, in my own experience) allows using user tailored mods. The others (most) enforce a stock game. A few enforce use of a specic mod collection (there's only really two being used) where one does not touch flight physics nor pull the game in any direction except polish, and the other does adjust those things towards their 'flavour'.

Out of the four main options above, two of them should suit you fine (no flavour thing, no way to cheat - level playing field). And only one of them actually allows cheating.

The proposal here attempts to show how most automation aids can be a disadvantage versus those who 'learned it right' and so they can/should be more accepted. And it proposes a system to further distinguish those who learned it right and reward them appropriately. The aids are then reserved for those who are foremost just not yet capable of flying without them, allowing them to participate which would otherwise be impossible.

Delicious video. I'm sure it would be possible even in multi-engined. And anyone capable of taking on that task should get recognition for it online. And hopefully, he could be flying with other four engine bombers where the pilot is not capable of handling it all by himself.

At the moment, I solved the problem of individual prop pitch levers for individual engines for twin engined planes, and I from now on intend to fly the Bf 110 G-2 vs those tempests and spits from 1944 - without auto prop pitch! That means that the prop levers will directly set a specific blade angle for each engine. Overreving will be possible. Lots more to take into account, and higher chance (since I don't know how to do it right - yet) to get shot up. But it's going to be awesome! The feel of authenticity. The machinery to play and tinker with.:twisted: With my British Bf 110 manual describing how to fly it all on manual by my side.

Sure thing, I'm sure many of us, if not most, want to learn those things, if we had time/could/capable etc. Question is, would you be willing to fly with people who automate some or many of those things because they can't yet do it? Using the ideas from the proposal about ranks and score for example, to give further rewards for you if you did indeed fly at that level.

The nature of some aids is a bit like rFactor aids, yes. I don't know if rFactor aids actually give advantages or not (in other driving sims, they can give a huge advantage since they give you 100% optimal handling of certain aspects of race driving). This is not what I advocate for aids.

What I am suggesting is stated in the opening summary of the first post (might have been added after you wrote this post, don't remember). Recapping: Mention current aids (that aren't way out there mostly) and what will be considered aids in SoW (like automating fuel tank selection/pump primers perhaps), as well as suggestions for new aids and how they would work, and how they could bring the people now stuck at the lower 'arcady' levels into the more realistic settings until they 'learn the ropes' manually, if they can. Most aids would not bring a benefit over those who know 'how to' fly it manually, but would still allow those who are not yet at that level, or just can't be bothered to do those last extra bits for whatever reason, to participate with those who go the extra mile. And to bring acceptance to a wider range, that is coming, no doubt, the proposal of using ranks and score rewards/penalties to distinguish those who use aids vs those who do not. The end result will be that very realistic servers can allow a wider range without much if any consequence of allowing this wider range (for most aids give no advantage).

The aids raise the flight ability to 'functioning' level for the lower level pilots but not beyond.
This is completely off-topic. Exception perhaps to show that there's little reason to completely reject the idea of people automating these aspects flying together with those who do them manually.