not changed since AH1: autoretract

[Simaril]

I'm no aeronautic engineer, and no engineering historian. But, I think some of the posters are missing one very important point.

This is a GAME. That means we play it for fun, not for work. And since it isn't fun to always taxi out from hangar, and let engine warm up for 10 minutes before full power, we shouldnt have to do that even though it was that way in real life. Since we're not going to be 100% completely accurate in reproducing what it was like (glad we don't have to chill the computer room to 20 below!), what we're really talking about is where to draw the line between historical fidelity and gameplay fun. HT has very successfully made a fun game that still works to "feel right."

Getting that kind of balance is NOT easy -- . Since many of us are "plane heads" in one degree or another, most of us at one time or another wanted this or that feature inserted...but what that desire really boils down to is wanting the slider moved more towards realism even if it made the game harder. (And incidentally, we may not have liked what we wanted once it was there...but that's another issue.)

So here's my point:

Regardless of my own individual preferences, I can see that Dale has a pretty darn good track record when it comes to judging where to draw the Fun vs Real dividing line. It seems to me that judgement skill is valuable and not all that common, again as witnessed by the large bargain bin at most software stores.

So, just like in my day job -- if I find a specialist who has demonstrably good skills and good outcomes I'm going to give his advice the benefit of the doubt, especially when the best course comes down to a judgement call. I'm inclined to give HT the benefit of the doubt, and if he disagrees after I've made my best case for a change (as I have done in the past) , then that's OK by me.


After all, while we only face another slash in the "death" column, it's his livelihood that's on the line.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Karnak

And whatever is chosen, there will be massive whines that x  was chosen when clearly y should have been.

no more massive than  e.g  AHII proked my pony etc etc etc


so.............. ?????? nothing new here then.

and we are one step closer to actuality and have removed a gamey use of flaps where there should not be one.

Jeez even in AW you could damage flaps by using them at too great a speed and AH could do it much better than AW if desired.

I see arguements about would they break this way or that way when right now they do not break at all!!  However the Aileron on my Boston always comes off the same way above certain speeds..whats the difference??

[CAP1]

Originally posted by Simaril
I'm no aeronautic engineer, and no engineering historian. But, I think some of the posters are missing one very important point.

This is a GAME. That means we play it for fun, not for work. And since it isn't fun to always taxi out from hangar, and let engine warm up for 10 minutes before full power, we shouldnt have to do that even though it was that way in real life. Since we're not going to be 100% completely accurate in reproducing what it was like (glad we don't have to chill the computer room to 20 below!), what we're really talking about is where to draw the line between historical fidelity and gameplay fun. HT has very successfully made a fun game that still works to "feel right."

Getting that kind of balance is NOT easy -- . Since many of us are "plane heads" in one degree or another, most of us at one time or another wanted this or that feature inserted...but what that desire really boils down to is wanting the slider moved more towards realism even if it made the game harder. (And incidentally, we may not have liked what we wanted once it was there...but that's another issue.)

So here's my point:

Regardless of my own individual preferences, I can see that Dale has a pretty darn good track record when it comes to judging where to draw the Fun vs Real dividing line. It seems to me that judgement skill is valuable and not all that common, again as witnessed by the large bargain bin at most software stores.

So, just like in my day job -- if I find a specialist who has demonstrably good skills and good outcomes I'm going to give his advice the benefit of the doubt, especially when the best course comes down to a judgement call. I'm inclined to give HT the benefit of the doubt, and if he disagrees after I've made my best case for a change (as I have done in the past) , then that's OK by me.


After all, while we only face another slash in the "death" column, it's his livelihood that's on the line.

this is what i've been trying to say for the last couple of times that i've posted.......just have fun as they are.......adapt to what we have......then have fun killing....or being killed(ususally what i'm doing:D )

[Kweassa]

and we are one step closer to actuality and have removed a gamey use of flaps where there should not be one.

Jeez even in AW you could damage flaps by using them at too great a speed and AH could do it much better than AW if desired.

I see arguements about would they break this way or that way when right now they do not break at all!! However the Aileron on my Boston always comes off the same way above certain speeds..whats the difference??

 Tilt, the difference lies in that the regulation of flap speeds, and its subsequent automatic retraction, effectively serves as an artificial barrier against what some part of the flightsim community calls a, "flapfest" - the practice of almost-mandatory reliance on flaps during combat. bozon's reaction on this matter, as can be seen in previous posts, would be a good example.


 It is unknown if HT and Pyro purposely envisioned this particular purpose into the auto-retraction scheme. My guess is they really didn't think about it that way, and just put in auto-retraction to make general management easier.. and the outcome is purely a by-product of it all. However, whether or not it was on purpose, the regulation and auto-retraction has effectively removed general "flap abuse" from the game, and confined it to only low speed/angles combat - where it realistically belongs. (barring the rare, gifted planes that can utilize "combat settings" of flaps at high speeds)

 
 For as long as I can remember, there has been opposing opinions about flaps in combat. I'm sure you are aware of this.


 Some contend that real WW2 pilots, used flaps every bit as aggressively as we do in the game. The others, including me(and perhaps people like bozon), think flap usage in combat was generally limited to special situations or a relatively small number of pilots/planes/squadrons - since the surrounding evidence seems to suggest it.


 Flaps are a secondary device in flight, generally only used in landings and take-offs for stabilizing purposes. Although the difference between game environment and real life environment may relatively increase or decrease the respective importance of this particular flight control during combat situations, as a whole, their role in combat should be limited: as suggested in this most excellent article.

"Other fighters have flap designs that are not so capable, particularly in jets where the speed range is wider. In these aircraft, flaps may be used to improve turn performance, but only up to the flap limiting speed. Anything over that speed is a no-no. What I mean is that the pilot should not deliberately exceed the flight manual limitations regardless of the effect on the flaps. Whether such action actually causes damage is irrelevant¡¦don¡¯t exceed the flap limits!"

SimHQ Article on Flaps and Combat

 The underlining is subjective on my part, which makes the heart of this argument. If the above can be called a "realistic" attitude, then clearly game pilots are hardly likely to abide by it due to obvious reasons. While it is mostly upto one's own decision whether or not to behave in a certain manner, unrealistic behavior does clearly lead to unrealistic circumstances.


 In my own terms, I call this situation a typical example of "situationary realism" as opposed to "technical realism". In some cases these two concepts are not necessarily incompatible, but in many cases they are. In this case, HT's method of auto-retraction, has produced (as an accidental by-product perhaps) a means to regulate the unrealistic behavior so most of the combat in AH2 remains as close to "authentic" as one can get, inside the limits of it being a computer simulation game.


 Now, let's ask ourselves these two questions:

"If they can accept the flaps jamming at over limited speeds, and say that they can/will manage it manually without any problems, then..."

A).. how do they expect to manage it manually, when they are complaining that the flaps are auto-retracting - which clearly means that they've already failed to manage it in the first place?

B).. in which circumstances does auto-retraction become a source of complaint?


 You see, these are interesting questions to ask, because while the answer to each implies distinctly different possibilities, exactly opposite of each other, they both clearly display why the auto-retraction is, as HT puts, "working as intended".  

A).. how do they expect to manage it manually, when they are complaining that the flaps are auto-retracting - which clearly means that they've already failed to manage it in the first place?

* Meeting auto-retraction currently in-game, already indicates a failure in management. They went over the speed limit, so it retracts. Therefore, if auto-retraction is deleted from the game, then in many cases where they try the same stunt with flaps out, they will damage it. This, might lead to general avoidance in flap usage altogether - which defeats their own purpose of being able to "control flaps better for combat".

 Therefore, they must argue that removing auto-retraction is not enough, and some sort of special implementation must be guaranteed so they can deploy flaps over the speed limit and yet, still do not receive any damage. Precisely as Karnak and bozon criticized.

B).. in which circumstances does auto-retraction become a source of complaint?

* They complain that the flaps have a tendency to retract under critical circumstances where their plane of choice, is about to secure an advantageous positioning - such as coming out of a loop, making a tight downwards turn, etc etc..

 In a sense, the flaps auto-retracting indicates they've failed to manage their plane, because they stepped too far from its limits. Is it really so surprising to expect a plane to lose control and crash, when they've gone too far over the edge?

 Ahh.. but they argue that, "Only if the flaps were still on, I'd not lose control".

 Essentially, they want to use the flaps as a critical instrument of their maneuvering, and want its effects to stay over the limit as proposed by HT (..who follows the flight manuals). In other words, they want to stick the flaps out over recommended limits, which under real-life circumstances would not as often happen, despite the possibility of receiving damage, so that they may be able to continue with their rough handling of the plane to gain a kill.

 In other words, they wanna game the game.

 It's not real life. Who cares if the flap jams and you might be killed because of it? If there's that bad guy in front of me, and I want to outloop it, then I will outloop it - even if it means having to stick the flaps down all the way through all the speeds.



 Basically, it's a self-destruction argument.

 If auto-retraction is removed, HT as sure as hell, will put in some kind of detrimental penalties to suffer from failure of its management. If they've suffered from auto-retraction that screwed their manuevring in the past, then this time, they'll suffer from some other penalties that will screw with their maneuvering... in which case nothing would be better. It'd probably be even worse for them.

 Thus, what they are asking is not a simple removal of auto-retraction. They want auto-retraction removed, without any sufficient penalties to replace it. And that, I cannot agree upon.

[Tilt]

I think we agree on how we would like to see auto retracting flaps removed and what would replace them...................  the exception is that I would like them removed with such damage modelling replacing the auto retract function.

I care nothing for the whines of those who would like to have flaps under unrealistic circumstances........to me it the same as wanting auto retracting flaps now ...............its unrealistic.

I do not agree that flap abuse is removed. I see it constantly...... remember its not just auto retract.............. this function also stops deployment above safe speeds...............and its quite clear to me that folk constantly try to drop them as the decelerate.(I know I do.... heck my JS is even programed to do it!)

For me we have a flap fest combat scenario now.............. (heck I do it my self in a Lavochkin!!). I see no reason why flaps should not creak and groan for a bit and then incurr damage in some way............if the ac had some sort of auto retracting flap then fine..............model it ............if not then model that!

[CAP1]

Originally posted by Tilt
I think we agree on how we would like to see auto retracting flaps removed and what would replace them...................  the exception is that I would like them removed with such damage modelling replacing the auto retract function.

I care nothing for the whines of those who would like to have flaps under unrealistic circumstances........to me it the same as wanting auto retracting flaps now ...............its unrealistic.

I do not agree that flap abuse is removed. I see it constantly...... remember its not just auto retract.............. this function also stops deployment above safe speeds...............and its quite clear to me that folk constantly try to drop them as the decelerate.(I know I do.... heck my JS is even programed to do it!)

For me we have a flap fest combat scenario now.............. (heck I do it my self in a Lavochkin!!). I see no reason why flaps should not creak and groan for a bit and then incurr damage in some way............if the ac had some sort of auto retracting flap then fine..............model it ............if not then model that!

i use the foward slip to keep my dive speeds down.........i STILL haven't run into the problems mentioned in the beginning of this thread though from the auto retracting flaps though. what i DO do though......if in a slow fight, and i hear them start to come up, and feel the plane change in handling, i almost instantly hit the flap down button again as most likely i've lost enough speed that fast to bring them back out.......but then again, i've learned to fight with the plane the way it is in here........now all i have to do is to learn to fight WELL:rofl

[Kweassa]

I think we agree on how we would like to see auto retracting flaps removed and what would replace them................... the exception is that I would like them removed with such damage modelling replacing the auto retract function.

 But like bozon and Karnak mentioned, how?

 How is HT ever going to figure out just what kind of tendency the flaps would fall into, when deployed/maintained over the speed limitations recommended by the official manufacturers? A safety margin? By how much? Would a safety margin guarantee a 100% chance of the flaps remaining safe? If not, where's HT gonna pull the numbers from?

I care nothing for the whines of those who would like to have flaps under unrealistic circumstances........to me it the same as wanting auto retracting flaps now ...............its unrealistic.

 But realism is never the only measure in designing a simulation game. It is perhaps the most important, yes, but at least in my view, maintaining a technically unrealistic approach that would at least prevent an unrealistic situation, is still more preferrable than a technically realistic approach that would, in all due probability, bring out an unrealistic situation.

 Ofcourse, on this opinions may differ, and I understand your terms.

I do not agree that flap abuse is removed. I see it constantly...... remember its not just auto retract.............. this function also stops deployment above safe speeds...............and its quite clear to me that folk constantly try to drop them as the decelerate.(I know I do.... heck my JS is even programed to do it!)

 For me we have a flap fest combat scenario now.............. (heck I do it my self in a Lavochkin!!). I see no reason why flaps should not creak and groan for a bit and then incurr damage in some way............if the ac had some sort of auto retracting flap then fine..............model it ............if not then model that!

 At least in AH the "abuse of flaps" is confined to speeds which was officially recognized by the makers. Look at IL-2, with a seemingly more "realistic" treatment of flaps where it can be deployed/maintained at any speeds. Once over a certain speed (which is way higher than recommended values), the flaps will jam. But this doesn't prevent IL-2 gamers from totally relying on flaps every time they need a comfy spead break, instant lift-device, a boost in turn, stabilization during angles fight, and etc etc etc etc.


 Heck, I'd fight Spifires in 109s by tightening turns at speeds over 350km/h in that game. A Spitfire enters a turn, and you'd just chop throttle and bring out flaps whenever you want to tighten your turn - as long as it isn't over about 400km/h. It's a insta-speed break, +lift magic device in that game. Nobody cares if such practice was against real life rules, or hardly recommended at all. They find it necessary, so they just do it. Thus, effectively, in IL-2 the end result of such treatment is that flap limits have gone over the regulation speeds. The IL-2 gamers have effectively figured out a speed at which the flaps 'never break', and use it at whim.


 However, in AH2, people may flap around all day long under 200~225mph, but at least they can't do the same thing over those speeds. In AH2, when I try to follow a Spitfire entering a turn, in a 109, I first manage plane as it is, try to dump speed with better controls/throttle management, and if I do succeed in staying behind the Spitfire throughout the process, and my both the Spits and my 109's speed goes under 200mph, only then I start using flaps.


 In my view, the Spit vs 109 fight done in AH2, is way more realistic than how it's played in IL-2 - thanks to the auto-retraction which forces an unbreakable limit in flap usage.

[Tilt]

If gear and ailerons can be modelled to break above certain conditions then so can flaps............there is not difference here.

I note that flaps can be deployed at differing speeds in AH as can gear (F4U) where the model should allow it.

Gear can break where the model  allows it too.

I care nothing for IL2 if it has gamey almost indestructable flaps then it is in error IMO.

AW had conditions where flaps like gear would break above certain speeds it is not beyond the wit of HTC to do this for AH.

The excuse that HTC would find it difficult to establish the correct settings is entirely fatuous They have many and where they dont they apply judgement as they do across some FM's now.  ....of course there will be folk who whine that their favourite ride is not modelled as they wish.where evidence is given and HTC judgement changes then they will correct stuff....as they do now for all other facets of the FM.

I note that CT will introduce variable "reliability" modelling certainly then stuff like flaps could have "grey areas" where there is not a dead line speed = flap damage point. However even if there was I would prefer to see flap usage combat forced within these points and pilots forced to apply judgement rather than have these things conveniently deploy or retract without risk.

[Kweassa]

If gear and ailerons can be modelled to break above certain conditions then so can flaps............there is not difference here.

I note that flaps can be deployed at differing speeds in AH as can gear (F4U) where the model should allow it.

 While there has been numerous debates concerning speeds flaps/gears may or may not be deployed, the criteria under which HTC operates is simple: they use the flight manuals. There is no arbitration upto which point the gears or flaps may 'safely be used' - there is only a limit, and when that limit is exceeded it breaks.

 Thus, HT gave us a definite answer on this matter - if people don't want auto-retraction, then the only alternative is immediate malfunctioning at the exactly the same speed limits as current.

 If this what you want?


 

I care nothing for IL2 if it has gamey almost indestructable flaps then it is in error IMO.

 Au contraire.


 IL-2 has three settings: Combat, Take-off, and Landing. The exact angle of deployment corresponding to the three stages varies upon each craft, as every aircraft uses different angles for different purposes. This is rather more "realistic" than AH in which every plane is given a multi stage flap with about 5~6 stages, since pilots would usually set flap angles as they've memorized according to situations.

 The first notch of flaps are "combat" settings. Like other people have mentioned in AH forums in various debates, many planes of WW2 did have a combat setting, or rather, a flap setting in which a very small amount of flaps may be deployed at varying speeds. P-51s or P-47s may have a setting named "combat setting" in the first place, but remember that Crumpp came up with a document showing 109s also used 10 degrees of flaps as 'combat settings', though the setting wasn't particularly named, as its US counterparts.

 Thus, the "combat" setting in IL-2 corresponds to that, a slight angle of combat-assisting settings - and in IL-2, flaps don't jam in this setting. However, take-off or landing setting(which would correspond to two~three notches of flaps, and full flaps respectively, in AH)  jams at about 240~250mph (390km/h~400km/h, actually) IAS.  

 240~250mph IAS...! Considering that manufacturers would set the limits with regards to a certain 'safety margin', a flap deployment speed listed as 180~190mph in a flight manual, could have an actual 'margin' of some 50~60mph ... and that's how IL-2 models it.

 Really, on paper, IL-2 hardly seems "gamey" at all. Indestructible? No sir. They model a very convincing "jamming point" for take-off and landing settings, and then employ a 'combat' setting for the very first notch of flaps which can be used at high speeds for all planes.
 
 Flaps modelled as above, would probably suit you, does it not?  

I note that CT will introduce variable "reliability" modelling certainly then stuff like flaps could have "grey areas" where there is not a dead line speed = flap damage point.

 Let's say a flap speed limit is listed as 200mph IAS in the manuals. The pilot deploys flaps, forgets to retract, and his plane exceeds the limit, reaching 220mph IAS.

 At which point should the flap fail? Total randomness? 10 seconds after? 30 seconds? 1 minute? 5 minutes? Perhaps never?

 Or should HT consider the concept of an arbitrary "margin"? Give the plane a 50mph margin in which the flaps can still be maintained without a "realistic chance" of failing? Should the game start calculating the chance of failure after the plane exceeds even this "margin" of 250mph IAS?

However even if there was I would prefer to see flap usage combat forced within these points and pilots forced to apply judgement rather than have these things conveniently deploy or retract without risk.

 Think of it this way.

 Some people here complain that the flaps auto-retract at critical situations, and they lose control of their plane, so they don't want it. Now, most of those people are in reality, respectable pilots of renowned skill. Just look at all those P-38 pilots complaining - they're part of the L33T in the MA.

 And yet, they complain their flaps auto-retract. Why does that happen?

 Simple: they mad a bad judgement.

 If it was real life, they'd never push their lumbering twin-engined plane into a death-defying knife-fight against all those lighter, nimbler, better maneuvering planes everytime. They'd usually prefer not to go into a situation where they'd have to make a dangerous judgement to keep the flaps down and risk damage to the plane.

 Ofcourse, this being a game, they enjoy the thrill of the fight, the opportunity to boast skill, rather than fear a failure of equipment which may result in one's own death. So they engage the planes, go into a bare-knuckle fight, just keep the flaps down as always, and then fail to keep the plane under speed. The flaps retract, they lose control, they die, and then they complain here.

 Even with the comfy auto-retract function in place, they still make bad judgements. You think they'll suddenly stop doing what they like, and start making better judgements if auto-retraction is removed?

 They'll do the same thing they always do. They enter a loop fight, bring down the flaps, woops, here's the end of the loop, plane speeds up. The speed indicator shows that your plane is going over the recommended speed for your current flap setting. Are they gonna retract the flaps manually?

 No way. They'll just keep it down, and keep fighting. This time, instead of auto-retracting, their flaps probably will be damaged sometime during this repetitive looping. The damage will lead to their deaths, and then they'll start complaining again - this time, they complain about their flaps jam too often. Subsequentially, they'll start asking for a higher "margin". A wider shade of "grey" as you'd put it, until finally, they get to maintain flaps probably upto 300mph IAS or something, without imminent danger of failure.

 I know this isn't what you are asking. But this is, inevitably, where it leads to.


 The only time people ever use "good" and "realistic" judgement in game, is when it is forced upon them.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Kweassa
While there has been numerous debates concerning speeds flaps/gears may or may not be deployed, the criteria under which HTC operates is simple: they use the flight manuals. There is no arbitration upto which point the gears or flaps may 'safely be used' - there is only a limit, and when that limit is exceeded it breaks.

 Thus, HT gave us a definite answer on this matter - if people don't want auto-retraction, then the only alternative is immediate malfunctioning at the exactly the same speed limits as current.

 If this what you want? if its the only alternative then yes

 


 Au contraire.


 IL-2 has three settings: Combat, Take-off, and Landing. The exact angle of deployment corresponding to the three stages varies upon each craft, as every aircraft uses different angles for different purposes. This is rather more "realistic" than AH in which every plane is given a multi stage flap with about 5~6 stages, since pilots would usually set flap angles as they've memorized according to situations.

 The first notch of flaps are "combat" settings. Like other people have mentioned in AH forums in various debates, many planes of WW2 did have a combat setting, or rather, a flap setting in which a very small amount of flaps may be deployed at varying speeds. P-51s or P-47s may have a setting named "combat setting" in the first place, but remember that Crumpp came up with a document showing 109s also used 10 degrees of flaps as 'combat settings', though the setting wasn't particularly named, as its US counterparts.

 Thus, the "combat" setting in IL-2 corresponds to that, a slight angle of combat-assisting settings - and in IL-2, flaps don't jam in this setting. However, take-off or landing setting(which would correspond to two~three notches of flaps, and full flaps respectively, in AH)  jams at about 240~250mph (390km/h~400km/h, actually) IAS.  

 240~250mph IAS...! Considering that manufacturers would set the limits with regards to a certain 'safety margin', a flap deployment speed listed as 180~190mph in a flight manual, could have an actual 'margin' of some 50~60mph ... and that's how IL-2 models it.

 Really, on paper, IL-2 hardly seems "gamey" at all. Indestructible? No sir. They model a very convincing "jamming point" for take-off and landing settings, and then employ a 'combat' setting for the very first notch of flaps which can be used at high speeds for all planes.
 
 Flaps modelled as above, would probably suit you, does it not?  

no it sounds gamey I want flaps set by the pilot not pre set "take off" "landing and gamey "combat"





 Let's say a flap speed limit is listed as 200mph IAS in the manuals. The pilot deploys flaps, forgets to retract, and his plane exceeds the limit, reaching 220mph IAS.

 At which point should the flap fail? Total randomness? 10 seconds after? 30 seconds? 1 minute? 5 minutes? Perhaps never?

at what ever setting HTC deem appropriate

 Or should HT consider the concept of an arbitrary "margin"? Give the plane a 50mph margin in which the flaps can still be maintained without a "realistic chance" of failing? Should the game start calculating the chance of failure after the plane exceeds even this "margin" of 250mph IAS?

see above answer






 Think of it this way.

 Some people here complain that the flaps auto-retract at critical situations, and they lose control of their plane, so they don't want it. Now, most of those people are in reality, respectable pilots of renowned skill. Just look at all those P-38 pilots complaining - they're part of the L33T in the MA.

 And yet, they complain their flaps auto-retract. Why does that happen?

 Simple: they mad a bad judgement.

 If it was real life, they'd never push their lumbering twin-engined plane into a death-defying knife-fight against all those lighter, nimbler, better maneuvering planes everytime. They'd usually prefer not to go into a situation where they'd have to make a dangerous judgement to keep the flaps down and risk damage to the plane.

 Ofcourse, this being a game, they enjoy the thrill of the fight, the opportunity to boast skill, rather than fear a failure of equipment which may result in one's own death. So they engage the planes, go into a bare-knuckle fight, just keep the flaps down as always, and then fail to keep the plane under speed. The flaps retract, they lose control, they die, and then they complain here.

 Even with the comfy auto-retract function in place, they still make bad judgements. You think they'll suddenly stop doing what they like, and start making better judgements if auto-retraction is removed?

 They'll do the same thing they always do. They enter a loop fight, bring down the flaps, woops, here's the end of the loop, plane speeds up. The speed indicator shows that your plane is going over the recommended speed for your current flap setting. Are they gonna retract the flaps manually?

 No way. They'll just keep it down, and keep fighting. This time, instead of auto-retracting, their flaps probably will be damaged sometime during this repetitive looping. The damage will lead to their deaths, and then they'll start complaining again - this time, they complain about their flaps jam too often. Subsequentially, they'll start asking for a higher "margin". A wider shade of "grey" as you'd put it, until finally, they get to maintain flaps probably upto 300mph IAS or something, without imminent danger of failure.

whines have not brought results here yet you argue that flaps whines will. There is no evidence to support such a claim...whines are ignored until evidence is given to support the claim and then HTC may consider an up grade

 I know this isn't what you are asking. But this is, inevitably, where it leads to.


 The only time people ever use "good" and "realistic" judgement in game, is when it is forced upon them.

Poor judgement has consequences with auto retract that consequence is removed

I say bring in the abiliity to damage a flap just as there is the ability to lose an aileroin on a Boston just the same.. just as unforgiving then you will see flapos deployed with the caution they should be.

[Saxman]

I have to say at least as far as available flap settings AH has it WAY more correct than IL-2.

Whether the actual degree of deployment varies, IL-2's three-notch rule is WAY too generic and incorrect across the board. Some aircraft only had settings for flaps up or flaps down and NOTHING in between. IL-2 doesn't model this. Some aircraft had MORE than just three settings (the previously mentioned F4Us, for one). IL-2 doesn't model this.

IL-2 is FAR from being a source on trustworthy flight data (even as of the last version they STILL didn't fix the R2800 overheat issue).

[DweebFire]

Actually IL-2 does model the 2-stage flap design.

Take up a Sea/Spitfire or a Hurricane and you'll see that the flaps are of only 2 stages.

But I absolutely agree with the other flap settings. 'Combat, Takeoff, Landing?' like wtf? Additionally, the flaps tend to not do much. Slotted flaps don't feel any different from split flaps in the game.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Kweassa



 Think of it this way.

 Some people here complain that the flaps auto-retract at critical situations, and they lose control of their plane, so they don't want it. Now, most of those people are in reality, respectable pilots of renowned skill. Just look at all those P-38 pilots complaining - they're part of the L33T in the MA.

 And yet, they complain their flaps auto-retract. Why does that happen?

 Simple: they mad a bad judgement.

 If it was real life, they'd never push their lumbering twin-engined plane into a death-defying knife-fight against all those lighter, nimbler, better maneuvering planes everytime. They'd usually prefer not to go into a situation where they'd have to make a dangerous judgement to keep the flaps down and risk damage to the plane.

 Ofcourse, this being a game, they enjoy the thrill of the fight, the opportunity to boast skill, rather than fear a failure of equipment which may result in one's own death. So they engage the planes, go into a bare-knuckle fight, just keep the flaps down as always, and then fail to keep the plane under speed. The flaps retract, they lose control, they die, and then they complain here.

 Even with the comfy auto-retract function in place, they still make bad judgements. You think they'll suddenly stop doing what they like, and start making better judgements if auto-retraction is removed?

 They'll do the same thing they always do. They enter a loop fight, bring down the flaps, woops, here's the end of the loop, plane speeds up. The speed indicator shows that your plane is going over the recommended speed for your current flap setting. Are they gonna retract the flaps manually?

 No way. They'll just keep it down, and keep fighting. This time, instead of auto-retracting, their flaps probably will be damaged sometime during this repetitive looping. The damage will lead to their deaths, and then they'll start complaining again - this time, they complain about their flaps jam too often. Subsequentially, they'll start asking for a higher "margin". A wider shade of "grey" as you'd put it, until finally, they get to maintain flaps probably upto 300mph IAS or something, without imminent danger of failure.

 I know this isn't what you are asking. But this is, inevitably, where it leads to.


 The only time people ever use "good" and "realistic" judgement in game, is when it is forced upon them.

LOL who pee'd in your Corn Flakes?

As one of many 38 drivers in the game I don't recall complaining about my Cartoon 38 at all.  I'm happy to pretend in what HTC has given us.  Having never flown a real 38 and never having flown real combat I'll just have to live with it over and over and over again no matter how many times I don't really die in my not really P38

Considering how much time we've all wasted in our cartoon airplanes, anyone talking about good or realistic judgement needs to step back and relax.

We're all nuts

Excuse me while I go check my cyber oil pressure on the cyber left engine of my cyber P38G.  it's been acting up as of late:aok

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Guppy35
LOL who pee'd in your Corn Flakes?

As one of many 38 drivers in the game I don't recall complaining about my Cartoon 38 at all.  I'm happy to pretend in what HTC has given us.  Having never flown a real 38 and never having flown real combat I'll just have to live with it over and over and over again no matter how many times I don't really die in my not really P38

Considering how much time we've all wasted in our cartoon airplanes, anyone talking about good or realistic judgement needs to step back and relax.

We're all nuts

Excuse me while I go check my cyber oil pressure on the cyber left engine of my cyber P38G.  it's been acting up as of late:aok

I think Kweassa is talking about Lightning drivers such as Tac and myself.  

For some reason, he just can't get it out of his head that we are not asking for something that will allow us to "game the game" or allow us to use flaps in situations where it wouldn't have been possible in real life.  All I have asked for is the removal of the auto-retracting feature and replace it with a more realistic flap model, one that will model damage from such things as over speeding, battle damage, etc.  

It is also quite possible that the reason why Kweassa is so against having a better, more realistic flap model is he probably has to rely on the hand holding, coddling feature that is the auto-retracting flaps.  *shrug*


ack-ack

[Karnak]

We know you are asking to game the system because you complain about the disadvantage the existing system gives you when any change would make it worse for you given HiTech's statement on it.

Given that you are whining about the current system hurting you I would be shocked if you are asking to be hurt more.