How can I change the default RTB speed?

[maverick3320]

My aircraft insist upon flying at military speed when I order them to RTB. How can I change this? Even when I manually lock the speed at cruise speed, the game overrides it (which makes no sense at all) and they default back to military power, shortening the range.

[DaveFromCTX]

Tagging along.

Also being able to have a/c not refuel on RTB if they have plenty of gas would be epic.

[maverick3320]

Tagging along.

Also being able to have a/c not refuel on RTB if they have plenty of gas would be epic.

You can change this one in the settings - just disable their ability to refuel. You probably want to do it manually (plane by plane or flight by flight); if you do it "globally", if you're like me you'll have planes that you forget about falling out of the sky.

[thewood1]

Tagging along.

Also being able to have a/c not refuel on RTB if they have plenty of gas would be epic.

Is this related to the OP's issue?

[thewood1]

1) Back in the day, it was requested very vocally to change the default RTB speed for combat aircraft to military. It was felt by several players that aircraft RTBing out of a combat zone should be moving faster than cruise.

2) You can change RTB speed in the mission editor using flight plans.

[DaveFromCTX]

Tagging along.

Also being able to have a/c not refuel on RTB if they have plenty of gas would be epic.

Is this related to the OP's issue?

Sure is. As OP stated: RTB speed is limiting the a/c's range. What happens when an a/c's range is limited? It looks to refuel. If an a/c can RTB at cruise speed w/o more fuel, it saves gas for on-station a/c.

[thewood1]

I think yours is more related to refuel settings in mission on unit RoE.

[Quark73]

It depends on thread level and fuel. If you need to bug out of combat quickly because you are on Shotgun or Winchester you care less for fuel to GTF out of this situation, in hope you can handle the situation somehow later on. Without obvious thread you can choose eco-mode for RTB. But I can imagine it's quite complicated to put it in a reasonable ROE.

[thewood1]

There are also many options in the flight plan editor, when combined with RoE, that can do a lot of this for you. Or at least make sure you aren't missing something. It just requires a little thought before the planes ever leave the ground.

[maverick3320]

There are also many options in the flight plan editor, when combined with RoE, that can do a lot of this for you. Or at least make sure you aren't missing something. It just requires a little thought before the planes ever leave the ground.

Great, I'll try to think more next time. Why make a simple option in the menu for "RTB speed" like everything else when I can use the mission creator and ROE settings to change a speed 100 knots. The Thinking Man's solution!

[thewood1]

"Also being able to have a/c not refuel on RTB if they have plenty of gas would be epic"

This is what I was referring to. Its why jumping in the other topics messes things up.

[DaveFromCTX]

There are also many options in the flight plan editor, when combined with RoE, that can do a lot of this for you. Or at least make sure you aren't missing something.

You might have missed in my previous post where I use the term "on-station". Let me explain why I did that, I was talking about DCA/OCA. In those types of missions, there's options to prevent launching all units at the same time in order to ensure continuous coverage. With continuous coverage, the launch times for additional flights - based on the original flights either RTBing due to weapons or fuel - could not be predetermined before taking off. Predetermined flight plans would still have to be manually assigned.

It just requires a little thought before the planes ever leave the ground.

Hey, wouldn't be the first time CMO reminded me I'm out of my depth.

[DaveFromCTX]

"Also being able to have a/c not refuel on RTB if they have plenty of gas would be epic"

This is what I was referring to. Its why jumping in the other topics messes things up.

I understood what you were referencing and I thought I did a good job of tying it back to the last sentence of the original post.

I will try again: I have a scenario I've been working on for some time now where I have my on station DCA maintain a high joker threshold of 70%. We are so far from the assigned base that I either want them refueling or in combat until they run out of missiles.

When they're out of missiles, I want them to remove themselves from combat as soon as possible and try not to take any more gas from the aircraft that are currently or going to be on station soon.

The idea of this feature was originally implanted in my brain by the Lessons from the Cockpit podcast by a former KC135 pilot. It was reinstigated by this thread. I figured tagging along would be easier than starting over and explaining everything from the beginning but here we are.

[thewood1]

So you want them at military speed to egress. Isn't that the opposite of the OP? Either way, I have been using the multi-mission planner to create an ingress mission and then when that mission is complete, it triggers an egress mission with different parameters. If you use the flight plan, you can set any parameters you want. It gives you an ton of options to play around with.

[DaveFromCTX]

So you want them at military speed to egress. Isn't that the opposite of the OP? Either way, I have been using the multi-mission planner to create an ingress mission and then when that mission is complete, it triggers an egress mission with different parameters. If you use the flight plan, you can set any parameters you want. It gives you an ton of options to play around with.

Wood, if you ever wonder -- this is why I go back and forth with you. Because eventually you will dumb something down enough that it will make sense to me. Sometimes getting the wisdom out of you takes effort but you are - pound for pound - the most informative poster on this board. I had never thought of doing two missions to accomplish this.

By any chance, could you send me a scenario example where you made this work? If I had all the money in the world I would bribe P Gatcomb into building my scenarios.

[thewood1]

My philosophy is keep pointing closer and closer to the solution. I don't like doing other people's work for them when a little more effort will yield a better result. Grew up in Northern Maine and that was the general way of life.

I'll see what I have that's usable, but it'll take as bit. I play in the scenario editor and use a lot of its tools. If you are unwilling to do that, some of the solutions won't be useful.

[thewood1]

Are you using 1328.5 or 1307.18 builds. My test scenarios are using db3k 500 from the betas. They won't work in the release build.

[DaveFromCTX]

My philosophy is keep pointing closer and closer to the solution. I don't like doing other people's work for them when a little more effort will yield a better result. Grew up in Northern Maine and that was the general way of life.

I'll see what I have that's usable, but it'll take as bit. I play in the scenario editor and use a lot of its tools. If you are unwilling to do that, some of the solutions won't be useful.

Rethinking every interaction I've ever had with you. Makes total sense. And even though it hasn't always conformed to my southern way of BSing, it is eventually appreciated.

[DaveFromCTX]

Are you using 1328.5 or 1307.18 builds. My test scenarios are using db3k 500 from the betas. They won't work in the release build.

Currently I'm on the beta. But if you wouldn't mind sharing it just so I can look at the structure, that should be enough for me to get started. Lately, I've been doing a lot more testing - which takes a discipline I lack the other 6 days of the week.

[thewood1]

It'll be a couple days. I'm documenting as much as I can for the new manual so I am rebuilding my test scenario to match it to the current build.