What have they done to my M8!

[E25280]

Eh!  I call it playful exaggeration.

I agree and understand the points you make, but it seems like in the 37mm Il-2's case the "idealization" benefit is far more pronounced than in other aircraft.  In other words, the less reliable a weapon was, and the more difficult to deploy, the more its reliability and ease of use increases when implemented in a computer game.  Do you see what I mean?

I understand your point, but you have to look at it from the other side.  If you are going to model some kind of "unreliability factor" into one aircraft, you must model it into all of them in order to be consistent.  Then you have the whole argument of degree -- how much unreliability is too much, how much not enough, etc. etc.  That opens up a whole new world of whining/crying/stamping of feet that would make all previous complaints pale by comparison.

No, the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it.  Yes, it disproportionately benefits the countries that historically had the worst quality control/materials/manufacturing capabilities, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It allows those designs to show the full potential they would have had if only they were produced somewhere else.

[SlapShot]

I understand your point, but you have to look at it from the other side.  If you are going to model some kind of "unreliability factor" into one aircraft, you must model it into all of them in order to be consistent.  Then you have the whole argument of degree -- how much unreliability is too much, how much not enough, etc. etc.  That opens up a whole new world of whining/crying/stamping of feet that would make all previous complaints pale by comparison.

No, the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it.  Yes, it disproportionately benefits the countries that historically had the worst quality control/materials/manufacturing capabilities, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It allows those designs to show the full potential they would have had if only they were produced somewhere else.

+1

[Oldman731]

I understand your point, but you have to look at it from the other side.  If you are going to model some kind of "unreliability factor" into one aircraft, you must model it into all of them in order to be consistent.  Then you have the whole argument of degree -- how much unreliability is too much, how much not enough, etc. etc.  That opens up a whole new world of whining/crying/stamping of feet that would make all previous complaints pale by comparison.

No, the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it.  Yes, it disproportionately benefits the countries that historically had the worst quality control/materials/manufacturing capabilities, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It allows those designs to show the full potential they would have had if only they were produced somewhere else.

+2

- oldman

[hammer]

... the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it. ...

While I whole-heartedly agree with your point, it makes me wonder if Ki-84s were designed to have parts fall off at high speeds. Just one of those things that makes me go hmmmmm.

Regards,

Hammer

[Soulyss]

I understand your point, but you have to look at it from the other side.  If you are going to model some kind of "unreliability factor" into one aircraft, you must model it into all of them in order to be consistent.  Then you have the whole argument of degree -- how much unreliability is too much, how much not enough, etc. etc.  That opens up a whole new world of whining/crying/stamping of feet that would make all previous complaints pale by comparison.

No, the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it.  Yes, it disproportionately benefits the countries that historically had the worst quality control/materials/manufacturing capabilities, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It allows those designs to show the full potential they would have had if only they were produced somewhere else.

+3

A little thought about the matter and the wisdom of why HTC hasn't modeled this sort of thing is pretty apparent. 
Look at the frequency that puffy ack complaints pop up on the BBS.  Now add to that list, engine failure/fire, gun jamming, landing gear failure, etc.  The modeling of these historical quirks would likely involve a lot of guess work.  For example early model B-29's had a problem with engines catching on fire.  Is the data about how many engine fires occurred available compared to how many sorties were flown?  This leaves a lot of guess work in the coding which then means it's a no-win situation.  Plus it's just not fun to fly a plane that could come apart at the seems at a random moment. 

[Rich46yo]

You just spout one fallacy after another.  There really is no point in discussing things with you.

I "spout fallacies"?

Kid you have basically zero% interaction with IL2s and yet you are in here whining about them all the time.

Now your crying about "personal attacks".

Its all adding up isnt it? Your a cry baby.

[Anaxogoras]

While I whole-heartedly agree with your point, it makes me wonder if Ki-84s were designed to have parts fall off at high speeds. Just one of those things that makes me go hmmmmm.

Regards,

Hammer

I gotta agree with Hammer here.  It seems like the Ki-84 does have reliability issues built into its model.

I understand your point, but you have to look at it from the other side.  If you are going to model some kind of "unreliability factor" into one aircraft, you must model it into all of them in order to be consistent.  Then you have the whole argument of degree -- how much unreliability is too much, how much not enough, etc. etc.  That opens up a whole new world of whining/crying/stamping of feet that would make all previous complaints pale by comparison.

No, the easiest and most sustainable solution is to model NONE of it.  Yes, it disproportionately benefits the countries that historically had the worst quality control/materials/manufacturing capabilities, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It allows those designs to show the full potential they would have had if only they were produced somewhere else.

But the 37mm Il-2 recoil issue has nothing to do with quality control or materials.  Great breakdown there, but I'm not sure it's applicable to this particular case (though I totally agree that jamming has no place in AH).  Instead, the recoil effect occurs just because it's a big gun firing a big shell, and because the two big guns were not synchronized.  There was not a failure of a synchronization mechanism that we're leaving out in AH because there never was one.

So how do you account for that?

[Soulyss]

I would think the difference would be that if the Ki-84 is losing parts at high-speeds that's still player controlled.  The airframe has it's limits and you learn where they are and then you can avoid them.  A gun jam, engine failure, etc. would be a more random occurrence that I think would just lead to frustrations.

[hammer]

I would think the difference would be that if the Ki-84 is losing parts at high-speeds that's still player controlled.  The airframe has it's limits and you learn where they are and then you can avoid them.  A gun jam, engine failure, etc. would be a more random occurrence that I think would just lead to frustrations.

Good point, and certainly a marked difference from the random failure of a part the player has no control over. Still, it's undoubtedly a variable. Granted, every facet of the data used by HTC would vary from plane to plane within a type, and we could argue minutia until blue in the face. I have no real complaints. Just, as I said, something that makes me go hmmmm.

Regards,

Hammer

[E25280]

I gotta agree with Hammer here.  It seems like the Ki-84 does have reliability issues built into its model.

The KI-84 shedding parts at high speed I always figured was a bona fide design flaw -- that is, insufficient structural resilience in the design itself, rather than modeling the poor quality materials.  I could be wrong on that point, though.

But the 37mm Il-2 recoil issue has nothing to do with quality control or materials.  Great breakdown there, but I'm not sure it's applicable to this particular case (though I totally agree that jamming has no place in AH).  Instead, the recoil effect occurs just because it's a big gun firing a big shell, and because the two big guns were not synchronized.  There was not a failure of a synchronization mechanism that we're leaving out in AH because there never was one.

So how do you account for that?

If I understand the situation correctly, there was no synchonization "mechanism" that kept the guns firing at the same time.  But they are two guns that should, in theory, be firing at the same rate if they were constructed exactly the same.  Pull the trigger, both fire.  Keep the trigger depressed, and they would continue to fire at the same time if the guns were perfectly identical.  So, in RL they went out of sync why?  Because in RL there are variabilities in the guns' mechanically limited firing rates, even though they were not designed to fire any differently.

So, I switch the question back to you.  If you are modeling a game and want to be consistent with all weapons, what kind of mechanical variability in the firing time do you model in for each gun?  .1 second?  .3 second?  .01 second?  How do you even source that kind of information?

If you are going to model a variable rate of fire for a plane carrying two guns, shouldn't it be modeled for planes carrying only one gun?  Shouldn't there be a variability in the rate of fire that would affect synchronized guns if one of them just happened to be inadvertentely built to fire slower?

Again, at the end of the day, IMO you would be unnecessarily complicating matters to take it to this degree because one plane seems to be benefitting from standardization moreso than other models.

[Ack-Ack]

Plus it's just not fun to fly a plane that could come apart at the seems at a random moment. 

While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, AW did model that if the maintenance hangers at the field you upped from were damaged or destroyed.  Sometimes you'd spawn a plane that was already smoking or you spawned a plane that appeared to be working perfectly only to blow up in flight due to the shoddy maintenance.


ack-ack

[Oldman731]

While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, AW did model that if the maintenance hangers at the field you upped from were damaged or destroyed.  Sometimes you'd spawn a plane that was already smoking or you spawned a plane that appeared to be working perfectly only to blow up in flight due to the shoddy maintenance.

Hah!  I remember that now!

The observation probably belongs in a different thread, though, perhaps one of those where people are whining that bombing airfields isn't as effective as it used to be.  AW had a great solution.

- oldman

[Anaxogoras]

The KI-84 shedding parts at high speed I always figured was a bona fide design flaw -- that is, insufficient structural resilience in the design itself, rather than modeling the poor quality materials.  I could be wrong on that point, though.
If I understand the situation correctly, there was no synchonization "mechanism" that kept the guns firing at the same time.  But they are two guns that should, in theory, be firing at the same rate if they were constructed exactly the same.  Pull the trigger, both fire.  Keep the trigger depressed, and they would continue to fire at the same time if the guns were perfectly identical.  So, in RL they went out of sync why?  Because in RL there are variabilities in the guns' mechanically limited firing rates, even though they were not designed to fire any differently.

So, I switch the question back to you.  If you are modeling a game and want to be consistent with all weapons, what kind of mechanical variability in the firing time do you model in for each gun?  .1 second?  .3 second?  .01 second?  How do you even source that kind of information?

If you are going to model a variable rate of fire for a plane carrying two guns, shouldn't it be modeled for planes carrying only one gun?  Shouldn't there be a variability in the rate of fire that would affect synchronized guns if one of them just happened to be inadvertentely built to fire slower?

Again, at the end of the day, IMO you would be unnecessarily complicating matters to take it to this degree because one plane seems to be benefitting from standardization moreso than other models.

Ok, I'm going to have to yield here.  You've argued the case very persuasively and I am out of objections.  Thanks for the discussion!

[ToeTag]

What happened to the M8 discussion?  Bunch of A.D.D. kids in here that hijack peoples posts.

Is Hispd in game Hitech?  If so I popped his 34/85 in the turret the other day (smoke stack) and he was squaking about it on 200.  He also didn't like the fact that he couldn't kill my M8 with the first shot.

[OOZ662]

Is Hispd in game Hitech?

No.

In fact, HiTech has previously demonstrated that he doesn't really play AH at all, if any.