Definition of Flight Simming

[Saurdaukar]

Yes I am a pilot,only have around 1k hours, in fact you can fly my personal plane in the game. Tail number N346AK. And there is nothing wrong with the ball programing, but it is possible a plane has the gauge set up incorrectly, which one are you referring to.

HiTech

Coincidence?  Or something more...   

[RASTER]

by what criteria should AH engines fail? Spell it out for me.

I simply can't resist it Krusty. YOU KNOW exactly. But should engines fail as part of a system so that some pilots will have a reason, a damn good reason if its a long climb, to leave their favourite ride in the hanger and try something more reliable when their 109 pops a hole in number one cylinder because of a thoughtless control parameter. I say maybe...a strong maybe and certainly not a definite no. I would not say no at this point.

And the reason why I posted to this thread again. MOSQUITO's did not fail. Or should I say Canadian Made (Packard Merlins) (USA built Merlins) did not fail. Pilots crossed the Atlantic ocean in them. And this was how long after Amelia Earhart tried to nonstop in her Electra..when was it, at the start of the German invasions perhaps?

I would prefer to pilot a Canadian Mosquito that never fails, at 400mph than flogging a 109 up to 20000ft only to have a valve blow out when I got there.

And another thing, the ability to predict mechanical failure has been with us since the US put men on the moon. You can go back to school to learn how to do that if you think it can't be done. People who push "P" to plane go fast are the ones mostly likely to believe otherwise.

And Hitech, the turn ball is wrong and if it works off the flight physics model then your flight physics model is wrong too. Next time you're up in the air and doing a balanced turn, pull harder and maintain the same pitch and bank and tell  me what the turn ball does.

[Krusty]

I simply can't resist it Krusty. YOU KNOW exactly.

People who push "P" to plane go fast are the ones mostly likely to believe otherwise.

No, spell it out.

There's inputs and results. What does a pilot do to have their engine seize up on them? What must a pilot do for their plane to stop working?

If the answer is "nothing at all" then you haven't got a leg to stand on. You're asking for randomly generated engine failures. That's nothing more than a penalization of the player base for no benefit. Your engine might as well stop the second you start it. What's the point? You get a new plane, you get new lives.


If, on the other hand, you propose a specific sets of "if, then, that happens" then please spell out what a pilot must do (in your mind) and what the result is. Example: If gear down, exceed "gear speed," gear rips off....

If pilot does _________ then engine does ____________ ?

What must a pilot do to kill the engine, in your mind?

[RASTER]

LOL Krusty...I'm not going to spell it out. I told you. I pilot the Mosquito almost exclusively. The Canadian Made Mosquito engines didn't fail. Failure is for the Euro trash.

[gyrene81]

Well Krusty, first I'm much less of a "gamer" than you...for me the idea of randomized failures wouldn't bother me nearly as much as it would the gamers who disdain anything more challenging than stirring the stick...and I have not been "indoctrinated" to think anything. I make my own decisions...


You are also wrong about manufacturing processes from 1936 to 1945...for instance aircraft and vehicle engine oil and fuel leaks that were considered "typical"...petroleum refinement processes were primitive...engine oil did not contain 40 additives to improve it's performance...gasoline was refined with higher sulfur, phosphorous and lead content, and it didn't contain any detergents...steel was not refined and graded the same as it is now...aluminum was as new metal alloy and no two countries used the same manufacturing process...rubber didn't contain high amounts of carbon, silicone and latex polymers...computer controlled injection molding systems didn't exist...machining processes were still done by hand using tolerances that varied from person to person depending on the quality of the tools they had to work with...every nut, bolt and screw on a vehicle or airplane was turned by hand and torqued to general specifications according to the physical capabilities of the person doing it...and don't try to tell me that an average woman of the 1940s could torque a bolt to the same tolerances as an average man of the same time period.

You assume "proper maintenance" according to current non-wartime non-combatant standards...and you assume erroneously...and I can tell you with some first hand authority as well as conversations with combat veterans from WWII, Korea and Vietnam...that "duct tape and bailing wire" is not just a tongue in cheek colloquialism.

During WWII, regardless of how much an engineer designed an engine to operate within specific ranges, by the time a copy of it rolled off the assembly line in a manufacturing plant...it's durability was subject to the limitations of manufacturing processes of the components, the people who produced the parts and the people who assembled those parts...Russian manufacturing was prehistoric and the U.S. had to use a mostly female workforce and build a manufacturing system that had little time for process refinement...Japan and Germany lacked the proper resources to raw materials...England had great engineering and production processes but they still couldn't produce an aircraft engine that didn't leak oil.

As well, it wasn't unusual for a military combat unit to acquire gasoline tainted with water, rust, oil or anything else...it also wasn't unusual for mistakes to be made by ground crews with something as simple as engine oil...


I have not once said that engine failure was a normal thing that occurred in every airplane on a daily basis, nor have I insinuated such...although if you look at the coveted B-29 it is well documented that engine failures occurred almost daily throughout its history...so someone please tell me, if the pinnacle of U.S. strategic bombers during WWII could suffer from engine failures with the latest advancements in aircraft engine manufacturing at the time, what would lead you to believe that the engines from any aircraft couldn't experience even a small percentage of engine failures with the thousands of hours spent at maximum performance under less than ideal conditions and manufactured without the aid of 21st century technology?


*EDIT* I think you have misread my intentions with my previous postings...yes it would be cool to have some of what Raster is talking about but...maybe even what Traveler is talking about but I don't have a problem with the way things are now.

[j500ss]

Random failures of any type in this game, would just cause more trouble than it would be worth IMO.   If we had a true simulation, I could see it, but for the game that it is,  too many would scream foul cause of what it might do to a score.

I do however agree that failures did happen, heck they happen today.  Only differences between 70 years ago and now?  The percentages are lower.  Having been a heavy equipment mechanic for a dealer for 20+ years I've seen it.  Just the way it is.   Components and parts can, and will fail at some point, not all of them, but some will, because nothing designed, modified, or built by man is perfect, just how it is.

 

[jdbecks]

to leave their favourite ride in the hanger and try something more reliable when their 109 pops a hole in number one cylinder because of a thoughtless control parameter. I say maybe...a strong maybe and certainly not a definite no. I would not say no at this point.

And the reason why I posted to this thread again. MOSQUITO's did not fail. Or should I say Canadian Made (Packard Merlins) (USA built Merlins) did not fail.  [/color]

You are contradicting everything you have said.

[mechanic]

Coming from a mosquito fanatic, me, this thread is stupid.

 

[Beefcake]

So basically everytime I want to takeoff in my B25 I'm going to have to do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxhSmeAqD0g <--- Cool video of an An-2 doing startup procedures. Yeah.....5 minutes just to get the engines started would NOT be fun.

[Guppy35]

I have the best cartoon crew chief in Aces High.  When I take off I know my plane is going to work perfectly the entire flight....right up until the time I get it broken.

Because of all the combat damage I suffer, my 38G always has new engines, wings, oil coolers, propellers etc.  More often then not it's a brand new plane!

But keep in mind.  If I have an hour to fly a couple nights a week, it would be areal disappointment to have to endure random failures or pointless start up procedures or in flight silliness put their to appease 'realism' junkies.  Kind of a pain to fly 10-15 minutes to a fight, start mixing it up and have something randomly break.  Give me another minute or too and I'll have someone in another cartoon plane break that part randomly for me.

Again I'll say it.  Quit confusing 'realism' with 'immersion".  That's on you to find in the game, not for HTC to try and model in by adding random mechanical failures etc.

[RASTER]

start mixing it up and have something randomly break.

Theres different levels of "Random". The "random" that might be acceptable is after shooting my self in the head, I might die and probably would but its still random if I would be successful. They type of 'random' you suggest is unacceptable is the type that someone else holds down, puts the gun to your head and then pulls the trigger, the chances then are random if you will survive.

The type of engine failure that might have a place is the type of failure that 'might' occur if you push the engine past the 5 minutes. Where the plane currently turns its wep off automatically, you would be given the choice to leave it on and then...your the gambler who chose to face the random generator. You can't blame someone else at that point if it was your choice and you came up the loser. That might be workable because it gives you the choice to take a chance. Making it a chance and not a certainty is in your favour where the current system dictates. This is more what I would prefer rather than the current timer.

Never did I say that I wanted a 30 minute warm up. It would have to be some form of trainer simulation for real flight before that level of realism were put into aircombat simulation. What I was thinking is more specifically the things that make one plane preferred. Its hard to enjoy your favourite plane when in fact the cockpit looks nothing like the real version and the piloting of it is the same as any other. That's ok for now but I can't think it will be like this in the future. However, I still may not have explained myself well enough for some of the trolls who posted on my thread. I am only suggesting that with limited resources, that AH stick to being a flight combat simulation and not venture excessively into the ground war at the expense of fidelity. "Excessively' is the word I used.

[RASTER]

I'm going to add one more thing as the former owner of this sim attached to my thread. The ground war in WW2online is rather fantastic. I enjoy it but I just don't enjoy piloting their planes at all. I can't actually pin down why but I don't. Hitech, if the development of the ground war has your bug, why are you not developing a WW1 online war simulation to attach to your new ww1 airwar simulation. I think a ww1 online simulation would be rather fun and honestly, ww1 flight simulation does not attract a big following. There are a lot of items in a ww1 simulation that would have my interest, ww1 tanks, some very strange and exotic. The use of gas and so on. A lot of potential for those who can venture in first. The ww2 ground war thing, been done.

[mechanic]

I have to disagree strongly Raster. There would be nothing fun about sitting in a damp diseased trench for months on end within earshot of your enemy and then all jumping up at once and slowly walking towards machine gun nests. Tanks would be equaly as boring if you think about it. The only way a WWI ground war simulation would be fun is if the real tactics of WWI were not incorporated at all.

[Peyton]

Lordy Lordy...random plane malfunctions and engine failures. Pay 15 quid a month and never get to fly because the plane falls apart.  Half the fun is flying with your m8s. You can log in and get right to flying.

RAPSTER, I have a new idea to add to your realism scheme.
How about random pilot death like heart attacks, high blood pressure, seizures, depression, drug overdose stress, Dear "John" letters and your honey back home is shagging your buddy.  All these can be built into the game engine too.  It puts your pilot on the edge and could cause him to crack or die randomly. It would add even more realism to your random engine malfunctions.

AH has a good thing going. If they want super realism then create an arena for it and make it totally optional for those who enter it.  Otherwise leave it alone. It's a good game and people who play it a lot already can handle the little quirks or problems of the game.  A little tweak here and there is good, but too much either way and the AH boat will roll over and sink.

Now if we could just find away for everyone to stop hiding the CV's..hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Plawranc]

Yes I am a pilot,only have around 1k hours, in fact you can fly my personal plane in the game. Tail number N346AK. And there is nothing wrong with the ball programing, but it is possible a plane has the gauge set up incorrectly, which one are you referring to.

HiTech

PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!