Pilots?

[TumbleWeed]

Is there a reason to assign a single soldier into an interceptor, as a pilot presumably? Or is this something that hasn't been fully done yet? Stilettos seem to do fine job even when unmanned.

[kracken]

Is there a reason to assign a single soldier into an interceptor, as a pilot presumably? Or is this something that hasn't been fully done yet? Stilettos seem to do fine job even when unmanned.

This is not implemented yet: atm there's no difference whether your stiletto has or not a pilot

[EuchreJack]

Actually, there's a big difference...

Using your soldiers as pilots will exasperate the soldier shortage. 

[Cro]

why is there saracen interceptor when stilleto is better?

[EuchreJack]

The saracen is faster (at least is should be) and may have greater range (but I'm not certain on the second part).

[DaCheetah]

Nope, turns out its neither.  I've noticed also that Harvesters and Supply Ships run away from my Saracen, but often engage my Saracens.

[mrwiggles]

Actually, I find myself using the Stiletto myself more then the larger one. With the same amount of space used for the large hangar, I can have four or so interceptors. I find having them swarm on one target with mass rockets or HIE rounds to be effective so far. If they can converge on the target at once. I generally only use one or two.

[shevegen]

I think it would be cool if stats were displayed more easily on the flying aircrafts
so that one does not forget that i.e. this is a "very fast vessel" and that other
one "can take a great many hits" visually

[Starship_Yard]

In 2.2 I can store 2 Interceptors of any type in each small hanger.  Haven't had to build any large hangers for Interceptors.  Have found the Saracens to be significantly faster on intercepts than the Stilletos, and longer range.

Brett

[kracken]

Haven't had to build any large hangers for Interceptors.

Large hangars are only needed for Dropship.

[Doctor J]

Large hangars are only needed for Dropship.

Thanks for clarifying that.  The UFOpedia says the Saracen needs a large hangar, so i guess this could be considered a bug?

[TroubleMaker]

By the way, could naming of aircrafts be implemented, as it already done with personnel and bases?
It should give more convenient control, if I could see "Firebird #1", "Stiletto #2/Russia", "Saracen w/pilot/Africa" etc instead of simple generic names.

[JonDough]

Yeah I'd find naming the fighters useful. For me the Saracen works better than the Stiletto too. I only use one fighter per ufo though. I've found it somewhat possible to manoeuvre the crafts manually by sending them aside from the track of an incoming enemy missile. They(enemy missiles) do home in on your interceptor but sometimes you can actually avoid them. It has happened to me a couple of times. I'm not sure but I have a vague memory of the guidance of the hostile missile actually stop when the UFO is shot down...

[Doctor J]

The saracen is faster (at least is should be) and may have greater range (but I'm not certain on the second part).

It is should be on both counts.  The UFOpedia somehow got updated before the actual craft stats did.  In upcoming versions the Saracen will be three times faster and go five times farther than the Stiletto, and will require the larger hangar.  For now, the only reason to use a Saracen is that the 'store' is out of Stilettos.

I think it would be cool if stats were displayed more easily on the flying aircrafts
so that one does not forget that i.e. this is a "very fast vessel" and that other
one "can take a great many hits" visually

You can get an abbreviated readout of craft stats [including speed] by clicking on the craft in the geoscape.  Presumably when craft get hit points that will become part of the display.  Also, i seem to recall reading somewhere that the devs are considering adding a 'tooltips' type feature to the geoscape so that hovering the cursor over a craft will give you information.

[TroubleMaker]

I have a vague memory of the guidance of the hostile missile actually stop when the UFO is shot down...

Hmm... let me propose simple explanation.

Self-guided (smart) missiles are more expensive than host-guided "dumb" ones. More... it is a real story.

Somewhere in mid-90th airplane's control systems were compared. USAF's one was built with heavy use of ICs and other microelectronics. Nearby nuclear explosion or another source of heavy EM radiation ruins that electronics into useless handful of silicone and copper. Similar Russian systems were built using special vacuum tubes, whose are immune to EM radiation, or almost insensible to it. (Do not tell me about weakness of a glass and so on - I know it)

As to missiles, smart ones have another drawback: lesser warload - dumb ones MAY have larger a bit load of explosives or jet fuel. Let us imagine that aliens use mostly host-guided missiles - their bionics tactical computers are capable to track multiple targets without degrading of performance. But when tactical computer has been powered off because of shot down craft, the dumb missile becomes even more dumber piece of metal, flying according last given directions. And it may also have self-destruction mechanism, which will blow it after the loss of connection to host just to not harm allies.