I decided to start this thread to talk about the nuances of flying online. There are a few things that have been on my mind that I'd like to bring up so that at least others will see where my head is, and it will eliminate any disquietude I might feel when flying with my SimHQ mates. This is in no way meant to be a proposal of rules. I think one of the most attractive things about what we are doing is that it is a very casual environment. So I wouldn't consider proposing a bunch of rules putting a damper over the free spirit we currently have .

The first thing I want to bring up is pilots on the same flight/package making declare and picture calls. Obviously when two or more pilots need to do so the AWACS response from a second call cancels the audio of the first. This could be a problem for some pilots. Oftentimes I am concentrating so hard on what I am doing that I don't notice someone else had just made a call. I lock up a target and instinctively hit declare. Immediately I start to worry that I just ruined someone else's call response. I think the obvious solution is to use subtitles and know your callsign. This way you can read your AWACS response regardless if another pilot had declared over you. So I suggest that everyone use subtitles when flying in our group. I think most guys already are, but I will feel better knowing I brought it up

The second thing I want to talk about is the ability to have staggered joins, that is people can come and go at any time and find guys already in, already on a mission perhaps. Personally I want to fly complete missions, including taxi, takeoff, landing, the whole works. But it crosses my mind that if I join when other guys are airborne and have empty seats in their flight that they might think well why didn't DBond join up and fly with me? Or conversely if I am in a mission and some join the server, maybe they expect me to jump out of my mission so we can all fly together. For me the flying is the thing. The social aspect is great and takes this to another level. But I don't want to change what I am doing to accommodate others. That sounds dickish but I hope you see where I am coming from.

The third thing is flying formation, and formation takeoffs and landings. We have some really good virtual pilots here. They can get saddled up in no time. But the point I want to bring up is communication. I think that if any guys want to join on a wing, or land or takeoff in formation it needs to be discussed and agreed upon. In other words don't attempt these things unless the other guy has confirmed it. We all concentrate very hard, and there is a lot of heads-down flying in a 4th-generation jet. Collisions that could have been avoided with better communication would be regrettable at best. So I propose saying something like "Two, request join on wing" or something like that. The other guy says " One, cleared to wing position" Now both guys are in the loop and in agreement. Transmissions can easily be lost, or technical difficulties can arise, so be sure first before attempting any close flying.

I love looking out at my wingman tucked in nice and tight. You've seen the screens I have put up. It looks cool and is tons of fun. However, I think in combat that we should consider flying in combat spread, with several miles between aircraft. In force on force stuff, being tucked in tight is an advantage, since it complicates the other side's attempts to separate the targets on their radars. But against the AI I doubt it makes any difference. In Vipers in the Storm, Rosey relates how their standard formation in combat was 8 miles spacing. We don't need to be that far, but I think we should consider more spacing, at least when you're flying with me so I don't crash in to you

Feel free to use this thread to bring up other similar sorts of issues. Having everyone on the same page, or at least knowing what the other guy is thinking could go a long way toward making our MP flights smooth, safe and enjoyable

Good and valid points.

IMO, declaring targets should only be done by lead (unlike I did last time haha) and lead decides to engage and if wingman should follow or go shooter.
If one joins as wingman one should play that part (and a golden opportunity to blame lead for mission failures ).

Here is where that "group coop" comes in handy, two pilots running their own 2-ship flight cooperating makes both lead.
Joining at the same time setting up a package of two (or three ) 2-ship flights we can still add eachother in the datalink (1 to 4 are blue and 5 to 8 are green).

This goes directly to your 2nd point, staggered joins might be best processed fragging ones own little flight (too late to join package) and just ask other pilots whereabouts (is that a word?) and join their effort in a seperate flight. Unless profile is a deep strike we will most certainly circle eachothers anyhow cooperating in the local area of combat.

3rd point, formation flying.
Generally I find this being the best Sit.Awareness killer there is but ok during transit to stp 2 or so and then go wiiiiide spread.
I did notice I was too close to you last night when we were to break right for next stp, with me close on your right it probably makes you concentrate more on me than radar and RWR - not good (at least that's how I react having a nearby wingman) and a perfect example why close formations should be avoided.

After all, we all have a datalink doing wonders for wide spread cooperation - there is nothing extra having a visual unlike 1941 in a Spitfire.

and 8 miles, that's waaaaay to close
Na, kidding, just inside the 10 miles circle feels like just perfect spacing.

My apologies there, DBond. I've used subtitles since day 1 and didn't realize that asking DECLARE cancels out the audio... does it really? I thought it queues the audio and the reason I have kept subtitles on is because I can read the response without having to wait for the audio to kick in.



"The whole works" for me includes startup and shutdown

I'm also not sure about hopping on a flight that's already airborne. We used to do this in 4.32 and we realized that when you jump into an AI aircraft, that aircraft gets "reset." So you could be deep in enemy territory after a 20-minute ingress flight and find yourself in a new jet with full fuel load. IIRC, even spent ordnance gets "reloaded" when a human pilot joins. Might not be an issue when someone joins en-route...

Personally, I prefer it if we can organize a time when we hop in together... doesn't matter if one is flying a SEAD package and another is flying a Strike package and another is doing CAP cover... much easier to coordinate if we "step to" at around the same time.



This is where flying with pilots of different skill levels and different expectations start having issues. Virtual wings solve this by having SOPs... things like how take-offs are done depending on loadout, standard rejoin procedures, FENCE IN/OUT checks, standard attack procedures, set commit distances to targets (aka timelines), RTB procedures, and so on. I find myself quite lost when we just "jump in" a mission and fly, although it is refreshing to do this... virtual wings can take 45 minutes or more from "starting" to actually stepping to the jet.

My proposal is a very quick-and-dirty set of rules:
1. Lead takes the downwind on takeoff. Formation takeoff for A-A loadouts (HARMs allowed), 10-second spacing if A-G ordnance is loaded. Wingman calls "2, set" when in position on runway and Lead can do a "3, 2, 1" countdown. Afterburner use on takeoff can be discussed at the time
2. Route speed of 350 knots, wingman on left echelon/route formation
3. FENCE IN call
4. This is the optional bit --- ideally, only Lead talks outside the package, meaning only Lead talks to AWACS for Picture and Declare calls. This also means Lead assigns targets for wingmen to prosecute. Again, OPTIONAL, but comms discipline greatly increases SA for everyone involved
5. FENCE OUT call
6. Again, route speed of 350 knots, wingman on left echelon/route formation
7. Overhead break --- I know some people like being vectored in by ATC but sometimes, some people would like to get on the ground ASAP. Doing an OHB and requesting autonomous landing on the downwind is quick and easy
8. Landing in staggered position --- again, Lead takes the downwind. This shouldn't be an issue on an OHB landing as the OHB spaces out aircraft quite nicely

Interesting thing that you bring this up though, DBond. Were there any issues with our join ups?



I'm just practicing formation flying en-route or RTB. Once over the target area, you'll notice I went in trail. However, again, I return to my point above. We need to have some quick-and-dirty SOPs **OR** you'll have to brief the plan before FENCE IN. There are advantages of being in formation but most of the time, it's easier to be in 5-10nm trail even on A-A missions as it gives both pilots flexibility. Bottom line, this is something that should either be on an SOP or be discussed before flicking on the Master Arm switch.

Interesting bit here as well... we could set it up so that I can get distance reading from your jet... can't remember how it was set exactly in the ICP.



All in all, I think this is a very interesting but sensitive topic to discuss, mainly because we're trying to fly casual but also trying to get things organized. I personally think we can get more flights under our belts and see what works for us and decide as we go along. However, I'm more for the "structured" approach... singing off the same hymn sheet is sweet when things mesh together really well.... and when they don't, it's easy enough to identify where we went wrong and what we can do about it.

I'd rather have a mess with first-timers joining and breaking gears, planes, comms and/or mission before setting up a SOP (while very useful I do admit).
If we get some 4+ pilots each session I guess a SOP list will soon be in place.

Well, I agree, but I would not have been so presumptuous to begin ordering others around. But if it is understood that is how we do things it makes it no problem.



Yes, I really want to start doing some of this. Problem is we are having AI wingmen issues as well so we will have to run a test or two. But at least when you and I fly Oden we should give this a go.



yes, I support this.



Yes, agreed.

No, aside from the issue when I didn't know about the formation landing everything went well on our flight I thought. My idea is just to communicate intentions when attempting to move in to another jet's airspace.

About the SOPs.... one of the things we want to do is attract new pilots, of any skill level. Oden and I talked about it for a bit yesterday while waiting for the other pilots who never arrived

We think the informal structure we are trying to foster is good for that. I am afraid folks might not join if they see it as too regimented and with too many requirements. Your proposals are perfectly sound and useful. But I think it would be difficult to expect this from all levels of pilots. And the problem there is that one guy is expecting it and the other doesn't even know what it means or how to do it. That's my first thoughts anyway.

I fully agree with you both. However, if we as the regular flyers fly in a "regular" manner, then it's easier for the newbies to get adjusted to us. If I fly different and you fly different and Oden flies different, it'll only lead to more confusion. We don't have to bombard the new guys with too much info, but if we at least have a semblance of a playbook we work out of, it'll get easier and easier as we go along.

It's like playing tabletop RPG... I could plunk down the Player's Handbook in front of a new guy and say he has to read this before he can play...... or I can tell him he's a dual-weilding half-elf and we start rolling dice and I tell him the rules as we come across them. I am fully aware which technique retains more players However, that does not mean I'm winging it all the time. I still have the Player's Handbook (ie, SOPs) to guide me as we play even though he doesn't know about it yet.



Yeah, sorry, that was my bad. Should've given you a heads up... I thought I did, but I guess not.

Well, you probably did tell me. But because of the PTT delay anything you said that took less than a second I would have not even heard at all. So for example if you said over the R/T "Saddled" I would not even have heard it if you see what I am saying. Or at least that's what I think happened.