man that sucksssss. But, thanks for the information.
Posts by WinWin
-
-
If there are only two left in the world, there would not be much point in implementing them as not many users would actually have them in their setup?!...
well, for the fact, I would. I know many players that would love a historical plane in their fleet. Personal enjoyment really. I would love to have this plane flying around my MC map. There aren’t that many plane liveries anyways. Maybe someone could do it. I mean it’s incredible how it looks and it’s really just magnificent.
-
oh ok. I play on the US server. I just thought that would be general all around. So, if it is so, I would not know the answer to that.
-
-
I noticed that i dont get any creds. from alliance missions when i sent an ambulance. I noticed that police cars normally have the same glitches as ambulances a lot of the time so i try to only send firetrucks.
That would be a very big issue. Are you sure? I get the credits no matter what I send. I recommend bug reporting it via the game. That is not an issue from me and I fact checked that.
-
Hi Everyone,
Myself and other admins in my alliance noticed people in our alliance send ambulances to missions where they are not required or all patients have already been transported, but they don't send any other resources. We thought that people only receive the credits by sending police or fire to the missions and the ambulances only get the credits if they treat patients and/or transport. We just wanted to know if this is correct? So we can inform our members and not waste resources unnecessarily.
Cheers
Jordie8396You can send any vehicle including an ambulance to receive credits for the mission. So in your case, sending an ambulance to any mission would get the transport or the missions value. But, if there are initial transports and you make the ambulance go to a hospital before the mission ends you won’t get the missions payout.
Hope it all makes sense, I am happy to help.
-
TACR has literally just started that zoning and boundaries are not possible...
I’m sorry, did I not make it clear that I have no idea what OSM is and I tried to give my idea?
Thanks for being rude man.There used to be a script where you could generate the pois based on the real life buildings in that area but the dev disabled it.
Helpful and interesting. Wonder if they can bring it back. Why did they get rid of it in the first place? -
you know, this whole concept is great and what I would most desperately ask for.
The way I picture this system working would be, you can select an area which you can drag as for example a text box with 4 little points. You can make a general area say, industry or commercial and select what missions can generate in that area. I can tick, banks, high rise and storefronts. It will also be super beneficial to people who want to build with wildland. I want many areas to generate missions especially when the area is large. So, if we can drag a POI box over a mountainous region and select “forest” then that whole area is considered a forest. It is an awesome idea!
Not to be repetitive. I don’t know what OSM is so just putting that idea out. It’s similar but maybe?
I think this system would be so much easier to use and very intuitive to the beginners side of perspective.
-
Not denying that Crew Carriers exist. Just saying they are not super popular. Yes, Cal fire owns a fair share but it’s not super common for crews to move around like that. They ride in the larger Type 3 engines.
-
In reality though, the 1,000+ personnel fires are not that common as a percentage of total wildfires sparked each year. Maybe more often in CA and CO than the other western states, but in those states it is more common for structure to be threatened and it becomes about structure protection as opposed to just make sure it doesn't get out of control like a lot of fires in MT/WY/ID etc. It may be worth making the largest fires just take less personnel than in real life or just not having them in game. The fact that missions are points makes super large fire like the recent CA outbreak or the '18 CA fires not realistic for current game mechanics anyways.
I'd propose increasing the Crew Carrier to around 20 people as this is a fairly standard squad number based on my understanding (and this is what NWCG uses for its production hourly rates), and it is an easy number for math. Even if they aren't always filled in your experience, we need to find a way to simplify the idea if it is to be implement in the game, and I'm sure some crews do fill them or several of them (in fact, I know that, because the dorm I RAed for in my undergrad housed firefighters in the summer, and we did quite a bit of chatting during my time).I agree that the credits shouldn't increase because the player doesn't attack the fire. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to set it at the acreage, and not have it be expanded. Then the fires decrease in acreage with water, increase containment with personnel and dozers.
I know you say that the Crew Carrier wasn't popular anyways, but for amount that I have seen them in the summer in MT and WY for fighting fires, I'd say they are still used enough to justify having.
I live in the heart of Silicon Valley. San Jose California to be precise. I really don’t see crew carriers often nor does Cal fire have a lot of them. Mostly, personnel work on the larger Wildland engines only.That would work. If we have a acreage and water need for these missions. Although it would be very confusing to know exactly what to send.
And plus, this containment idea is really just the red bar for mission status itself. That bar will go down proportional to the amount of units required that are on scene.
I would just like larger wildfire missions and the other ideas can come later. The Gallons of water already took a good step that way. Just give it some time and ideas. I love this idea and concept so we just need to incorporate it and refine it.
-
But would you need to count the personnel? We have this with SWAT, and we know that each SWAT AV holds 6 and the SUV 2-4 and we send appropriately. All we have to know is that a full carrier caries 12 individuals, T3/4 Engines 5 individuals, and whatever it is for 6/7s. Now without training, this gets much more difficult to count, so maybe we need a special training for Wildfire Hand Crews (carried by Crew Carriers or Wildland engines) and only persons with this training count for the person count?
The thing with SWAT is, the maximum mission for them will only ever require 4 full SWAT vehicles. That’s not hard to count and plus, the SWAT Bearcat REQUIRES 6 personnel to operate. So, you are really not counting the personnel but the vehicle it’s self. I just can’t imagine counting out the amount of personnel needed for the mission say divided by 12. I know that a real wildfire can get up to 1,000+ personnel on scene so, I would like that function but it’s just not viable. If we put a 12 capacity operation on the Crew Carrier, that would be unrealistic. In real life we don’t always fill them and saying we send like 10 of them to a mission, Crew Carriers were never that popular anyways.
Just had an idea... What if the water requriements were deleted. Still with me? Ok so now, what if a bar (like the water required one) is added, but for two things. How many acres it has burned and the containment percantage. If you don't have enough units on scene, the acreage will increase and the containment will decrease.... If you have a lot of units on scene the conatinment will increase and the acreage will start to slow down. Don't be afraid to make suggestions to my suggestion
The reason why that would not work is because we know people are going to use it to just upgrade fires and get more credits. All of them would make it so it’s the biggest it will get. And quite frankly some just may not have the resources so I don’t think I would want to be waiting for the mission to cancel because it got out of control.
I do love the idea, but it just won’t work.
If you say, the mission it’s self can have that function sure. I would make it so, a “medium wildfire” stays the same no matter how out of control it is but it will take more resources but not expand to a larger mission.
You see, the problem now is, that’s not very realistic and, if a player has like 200 missions ready, they will have to just let that mission grow because they have that many missions. That’s just not how this game would work either.
Kinda a dilemma, sorry for bringing the bad news. More ideas?
-
In real life Engines for sure have a water carrying capacity. But I don’t know how they would implement that in terms of gallons required. Maybe someone more creative could make up that system but yes, engines are very crucial for water supply on real life.
-
I ran into my second major wildfire and had an interesting problem. Too much water. It made me think what do they really need when dealing with major wildfires, people and water. My suggestion is set the requirements in dealing with the wildfire missions to people and water. For example, the major wild fire requires 8 tanker and 8 wildfire trucks. You will easily exceed the water requirement and in theory you could use the pickup truck style wildfire trucks and fight the fire to conclusion. What if the requirement was (insert water amount) + (insert number of required firefighters) + battalion chiefs and command posts. I think this would bring a better feel to mission than it has now. Of course the engines would have to be wildfire trucks but now the crew carrier has a real need. Not to mention the Heavy water tanker flying across the county is worth the wait along with the helo's.
Just a thought, have a safe weekend!
I agree heavily with the thought of needing larger wildfire missions. What we have right now is nothing compared to one of California’s fires. Also, I have noticed if I send 8 regular tankers that already exceeds the 30k water gallon requirement so, I would say either get rid of the tanker requirement or raise the gallon requirement so 8 tankers is exactly equal to the gallon requirement.
I do wish that the large wildland mission require more but having a personnel requirement although realistic in real life will not work here. I don’t want to sit around counting the personnel I send, do I? But I agree that we need more requirements for missions.
-
As far as I am aware of, the only thing I would really like out of this is a small and large ARFF. As you can see anything else discussed may be a bit to complicated and would have many different takes. That’s what I think at least. I would just simplify it to that. We can add other vehicles besides ARFF’s not sure of what tho.
-
yea, it’s not clear at all until I tested that it did not work so then I only assumed the dozer needed that. I think it’s quite obvious but, can you guys add that to the vehicle description? Thanks.
-
Display More
My argument against this is the airfields already have to have enough foam to deal with an incident involving the largest aircraft that it’s certified to handle as an international standard. So I don’t see why you would need x amount of foam as LAX for example will already have enough. For the wildfires it works because you may need to call additional resources but you shouldn’t need to at an airfield.
Different size crash trucks should just be done via a graphic and maybe a name change.
HRET systems still are not common enough to have a requirement in my opinion. I know airfields that handle the largest of aircraft (Boeing 747’s and B-52’s) and they still don’t yet have a HRET.
Rapid Intervention Vehicle isn’t necessarily a bad idea however at a lot of airfields they just have the domestic and then the crash trucks. RIV’s are a little outdated now. They were very popular in a time where the crash trucks were slow lumbering beasts but they are no longer like this.
Chemical tanker. Again, my point comes back to them being not that widespread. Crash trucks have to have a certain amount of dry chemical per regs so they tend to already have that and you don’t then have an additional tanker
Now, I would like to make a statement against that. I think having a requirement for how much foam would be beneficial. Like wildland units, ARFF’s don’t get a constant water supply. They rely on onboard water/foam tanks. Airports do have different size ARFF’s and I think adding a foam capacity requirement would be good because it adds to that fact of realism. A different size plane crash would need more foam.
The only downside to this would be, what is the point of having a small ARFF and a large one? This may be just harder to make than what it would give.
-
you know, I would like to see a Forest POI that you can drag a box to expand. I think that would be awesome so we can get calls from anywhere in that region.
-
Thanks guys! I have noticed that the Type 6 and 7 Wildland units now have a water carrying capacity.
-
i think it would be very helpful to have a separate column so that we can find the wild land units easier
yes! I totally agree. Although, it should definitely be an option for say if you want to turn it off so that for people who have only a few can keep it the way it is right now. Having Dozers and Wildland units, possibly and hopefully the firefighting air units in that category maybe a bit awkward. So definitely it should be off on default and optional.
-
exactly I am confused why they don’t carry any water in game. They obviously do in real life and it is very common Wildland unit for Calfire. So I am hoping they at least add a water capacity for the Type 6.
