Please make flaps auto-retract optional........

[Hazard69]

Please lets make the flaps auto-retract feature optional, like the auto-takeoff, combat-trim, tracers etc.
Lets start hearing the stress at about 10mph overspeed, jam the flaps if we overspeed by 20mph and tear the flaps off when we overspeed by more than 50mph.
For those that dont want to "monitor" their speeds so closely, let em use the automation already built in. Currently its like a "stall-limiter" thats always on.

Its hard enough to fight when one flap is jammed (and the visuals still show the flap falling off btw), but the other wants to retract as soon as you start building some airspeed. At the very least make it so that when one flap is damaged, the other does not autoretract.
Also in the current model, the flap indicator does not freeze but also retracts making it harder to determine exactly how many notches your flap is jammed at.

Just think automation should be optional. My $0.02

[Guppy35]

Use the search function.  This one has been done over and over to death.

[Ack-Ack]

It's not going to happen in our life time.  That being said, just like it's a good idea to learn when to deploy flaps, it's just as good of an idea to learn when to retract them.

While I've been asking for the removal of the auto-retracting flaps for years, I just want it done for the realism aspect of letting me have control of my flaps.  I never let my flaps auto-retract, I always retract them after I no longer need them.  I will agree that it is a slight pain to keep a vigilant eye on the speed dial to make sure I don't go .01 mph over the retract speed and get into an accidental spin if I'm in a high G turn when they retract.


ack-ack

[Hazard69]

It's not going to happen in our life time...............

ack-ack

That may be but atleast disable it when one flap is jammed. I mean if the left (jammed) flap is not torn off by wind pressure, why should I (the theoritical pilot action autoretract is supposed to represent) want to retrcat the right flap, and create assymmetry?

The least I would like to wish for is the flap indicator being frozen is the jammed position or better to have 2 needles like our "old" AH1 RPMs used to.

[Saxman]

I just want it done for the realism aspect of letting me have control of my flaps.

Point of order: Some aircraft DID have flaps designed to auto-retract.

[Krusty]

F4U flaps were spring loaded, if I recall. The springs simply couldn't push into the wind past certain speeds.

[Ack-Ack]

Point of order: Some aircraft DID have flaps designed to auto-retract.

Point of order:  The P-38 WASN'T one of them.


ack-ack

[Saxman]

Then how about not saying blow away auto-retract altogether for "realism" purposes as you did and instead specify you want it gone for aircraft in which it WOULD be correct?

[storch]

neither was the 109 or the 190.

[Ack-Ack]

Then how about not saying blow away auto-retract altogether for "realism" purposes as you did and instead specify you want it gone for aircraft in which it WOULD be correct?

In the many years I've asked for the removal of the auto-retracting flaps, each request has specified exactly that. 


ack-ack

[colmbo]

On some aircraft, the B-24 in particular, if you got fast enough to have the flaps "blow up" you also quite likely broke parts in the flap mechanism. 

[Murdr]

Here's your answer.  Like AKAK said, we've had a couple of go arounds on this, and it aint gonna happen...

First there are no plans to change flaps, and topics in this thread have not changed anything in my thinking.

Every request I have seen comes down to one request. We wish the current limit on flaps to be raised. They are disgusied in multiple ways, but they are always the same request. We wish to excede the current max speed limit in some way.

We do not model to some great philosphy. We look at how to model certain systems with some basic guide lines.

1. I realy dislike randomizers of any type.

    My view is that randomizers that effect outcomes should only be used as a last resort. I can sight multiple instance where randomizers are always complained about . We all know about the ack randomizer, but look at the last complaint about the fire randomizer time. Where some one is complaining that a zero flew for a long time. Well it just hit the extream side of the randomizer limit.

   So I only ever use randomizers as a last resort when it effects the outcome of fights.

2. Each system is looked at as to how it effects enjoyment vs how it effects realism.

Take the the other example of landing gear. It also has a hard limit just like the flap does, we make big noises before it is damaged. But gear is realy not used much in combat, hence it is more of just a reminder to raise your gear to keep them from being damaged. But at the same time we do not allow you to lowerer them past there set speed. All choice are made on nuiscance realism VS game play.

Other choices made in the landing gear modling. In reality the gear would most likly just be bent back. And stuck in that position until a machanic had a ferm talking with the pilot. What we choose to do , is remove them. The resone is that if you forget to raise them on take off. You can still continue the fight and make a belly landing with out gear. And no harm was done to your enjoyment that flight. But the only consideration about landing gear as far as realism goes is that people should not exceed there limits.

3. Flaps.
    Are different than landing gear because they can be used as a primary control in a fight. (on a side note, when dog fighting real ap51, my auto retract flaps was the pilot up front, I departed the aircraft because he raised them at the limit speed).

   In almost all our modeling we choose to stick the the flight manual. Cases could be made about real planes being modified slightly to increase there power, or that we should put a randomizer in to extend there wep time. But all these things have one thing in common, you are trying to model the completly unknown.  And more importantly there is no real consiquence do damaging the plane. For instance it realy isn't an all or nothing with flaps. Over speeding them could just bend some linkages, The would still function. But repair, and a scolding would happen after landing. There realy is no way for us to model those consquences, no do we realy desire to try. It isn't what the game is about.

A lot of people fly lots of different planes. My belife is that people enjoy trying differnt fights in different planes. But most are realy not interested in memorizing the speed settings of all flap positions. Now we could put marks on all the ASI, but that would take more work, make download larger, and rquire more texture memory.

So we are realy down to a few choices.

1. Autoretract, and not let them deploy.

2. Play a sound and snap them off. 

To me the auto retract is the most acceptible.

Because it gives us a simple cutoff line (flight manual speed limits) and it isn't a nuisance realism because we do not damage them when you just cross a line. And finaly It dosn't reqire a randomizer.

[Hazard69]

Umm.....hitech does make good points (from a game designer's view anyway ).
But why not give the player the choice of option 1. or 2. ?
Oh well, I guess I'm just gonna have to watch the ASI more often .