[Imposible Uncorrect]

It is a bit BoE-esque. There's a reason it's probably gonna be a bonus mission, not part of the main campaign.

It looks great, but just a bit unnormal. There are like four or five ships in the area only on the Player-side. What if you'd let the destroyer warp in after a special event. Like after the first attack and it's clear that you can't hold the lines without reinforcements.

P.S.: Isn't that the Planet backround from FS2 called "Planeta1"?

[Thaeris]

Considering that FS fighter combat doesn't seem as stressful (from an acceleration perspective) as real-life fighter ops, that seems like a safe bet.

If you want FS to be more realistic, you should consider the actual forces more carefully. "Real" FS, rather than game FS, would probably be dealing with an assortment of nasty forces on the fighters/capships which would assumably be dealt with by the current sci-fi "handwavium" technological conventions such as the "inertail dampner," etc. Despite that, a pilot would still be under a great deal of physical stress from maneuvers.

I can't concieve an 18-year-old officer being in service... unless you're in a REALLY bad way. Which FS often is, but still... At youngest, I'd assume a new officer to be of 20 years at least. And that would still be pretty uncommon. You might get off with 21, but 22+ is probably more in order for a combat fighter pilot under peacetime conditions. That's also given you've sent the pilot through a joint OCS/ROTC program as well as the degree program the individual was engaged in.

[The E]

Errrm. No? Since we don't have any canon info to contradict it, we have to assume that FS2 fighter combat is slower than real-life fighter combat.

[Thaeris]

I choose to utilize my imagination in this issue... I'd say it's better that way. 

[NGTM-1R]

I choose to utilize my imagination in this issue... I'd say it's better that way.  

Unfortunately, canoncity > you, unless it's your campaign.

[QuantumDelta]

The speed scale on the ships is meters/second as far as I understand, you can test this against the scale of ships you know the length of from the tech room
Almost all of the ships are slower than modern day jet fighters.

[Mongoose]

The only way I've ever been able to bend my mind around the in-game speeds is assuming that they're merely relative numbers to some significant object, but even then it's a stretch.

[Thaeris]

I'm fully aware of those factors...

 

You'll note I stated "Real FS" vs. "game FS." I was implying that if one wanted to make a realistic/more realistic environment for the FS universe, you'd put more consideration into such things.

[General Battuta]

Well, um, who declared the intent to do that?

It is a bit BoE-esque. There's a reason it's probably gonna be a bonus mission, not part of the main campaign.

It looks great, but just a bit unnormal. There are like four or five ships in the area only on the Player-side. What if you'd let the destroyer warp in after a special event. Like after the first attack and it's clear that you can't hold the lines without reinforcements.

That wouldn't make much sense given that this is an all-out attack.

[-Norbert-]

Or as all-out as you get when the battlegroup who was supposed to make the assault is inoperational 

[Dilmah G]

All GTA pilots are officers, so we're talking a ninety-day wonder officer training program in addition to flight training. I'm making the assumption that standard flight training is about two years from the time the recruit enters the system to the time he's piloting a fightercraft. (Admittedly, you could dispense with a lot of it being physical in practice, but then, we will.) Cutting it in half, first to a year, then again in half to six months, is about what historically people do. Those nations which have in wartime gone below the quarter-peacetime training regimen usually see a drop in pilot quality so sharp as to nullify the benefits.

Of course I'm assuming an integrated training scheme here rather than a seperate preflight and flight one.

Well in regards to Officer Training, currently at the Australian Defence Force Academy, studies are supplemented by an individual "Leadership Subject", so some very, very, basic Leadership skills could be taught in that 90 day window. I mean, what use are golden pilots if all your ships are gone by the time they're ready?

Included Advanced and Basic Flight Training, our pilot's course is hovering around 77 weeks over here, without counting officer training, so I'd say you're right in regards to Flight Training taking around 2 years. Well, the space environment is dramatically different to flying in an atmosphere, for one, there's no ground which may be harmful to the well being of the aircraft , which is the biggest difference between comparing current stats to "Future Stats". So what you come down to, is pilot's who either have a natural touch for the joystick (Light handed, soft on the controls) and those who don't, and we could assume Pilot Specialist Testing would've gotten advanced enough by that stage to weed out Heavy-Handed guys and girls who seem to think that the weight of the aircraft co-relates to the effort it takes to move the control surfaces. I mean, we have that already these days, for those of you who've had experience with Modern Selection Programs for Pilots in the Military.

And we saw that in the Battle of Britain, pilots who'd had close to 9 hours flight experience were being posted to Squadrons, and they either had it or they didn't. In retrospect, I'd say 6 months was reasonable as a severely shortened pilot training program, but if the need arose, I could always see pilot training being cut down to 3 months.

[Thaeris]

Again recall that wherever there is mass, there is gravity...

[Dilmah G]

Edited.

But seriously, I'd imagine it'd make a difference in the case of pilots. I mean, being badly shot up doesn't mean nursing the aircraft with an extremely light hand and applying constant control to keep the aircraft from crashing. Because for one, there IS, no crashing in space. Well, not to the severity of that on Earth. 

[Thaeris]

Despite its piss-poor damage/non-existant collision model, Laminar Research's Space Combat can show you very well what could happen to a space ship when it looses its RCS/maneuvering systems when it doesn't have the proper flight control system to compensate.

If the FCS goes out, you're gonna be in a real bad way. What if the system governing the roll/yaw/pitch/etc. constants goes down? Pull to hard back and you'll spin your brains out... maybe literally. Especially if it's damaged in some way as said before.

If you want a better perspective on this... try a Newtonian sim which accounts for engine position/thruster position and damage to those systems. You might get back to where you need to go heavily damaged and mostly dead, but it will be hard work, to say the least. And you probably won't be getting anywhere fast... 

[Dilmah G]

Ahh, I didn't think of that. But in the FS-verse...

[nuone]

When I saw this video it freaking broke my damn heart. Blue Planet is truly fantastic, yet the prospect of fighting your own people is disheartening. I will still play it, but will loathe every moment I am not on Earth's side.

[Dilmah G]

Ohh, I just FRED-ed that mission from a GTVA perspective for the sake of it. You fight for Earth as part of the UEF in BP:WiH. So don't worry.

[NGTM-1R]

When I saw this video it freaking broke my damn heart. Blue Planet is truly fantastic, yet the prospect of fighting your own people is disheartening. I will still play it, but will loathe every moment I am not on Earth's side.

So let me get this straight: It's okay to fight your own people, but only from the side you like?

[Thaeris]

It goes with the times, doesn't it? 

[General Battuta]

When I saw this video it freaking broke my damn heart. Blue Planet is truly fantastic, yet the prospect of fighting your own people is disheartening. I will still play it, but will loathe every moment I am not on Earth's side.

Relax. Like Dilmah said, you'll be fighting for the UEF.