Why is it when someone makes any attempt to bring just one iota of something more realistic than grab a toonplane and become an instant pile-it ace, people (and I use that word loosely) around here have to exaggerate the idea to the point of being a*holes? Try thinking like an intelligent human once before you post something that illustrates a lack of intelligence.
We all know it's a friggin game...and it can be improved upon without going to extremes if intelligent people carefully consider the possibilities and the consequences of change implementations...and the only way to do that is with intelligent conversation.
The next time you diss someone for doing something "unrealistic" in the arenas or shoot someone's wishlist idea down because it's not "realistic"...remember you words of wannabe wisdom here.
Because many people use the word REALISM to mean more difficult. This is a great example of that use of the word. While you state on a theoretical level failure rate curves can be made with which I do not disagree,you then assume failure rate curves based on all conditions of flight for these planes could be made, and hence state that you are only after realism and want things changed.
Raster tries make the argument because things did fail in flight it is unrealistic to be able to run your plane at mill power all the time.
No one in this entire discussion has brought any realism to the argument. Has anyone found any real data on one plane ,what real faillure rates would be for any paticular plane in any specific condition sets?
When we did research on this topic and how to do the modeling. What we found was that the odds of your engine failing when running the complete flight at mill power was extremely low.We found test of engines being run at full WEP settings for 40 hours with no failures So how is it in any way realistic to make a plane fail every time when you fly continuously at mill settings?
Now consider what would really be needed to model engine temps and failures.
Lets speak only of engine temps, do you believe you can find data on even 10% of the plane set that gives real numbers that can be used for heating and cooling rates?
Now lets assume you could find these rates, next you would have to find failure rates based on accumulated and continuous runs at different RPM and temps and pressures.
So you go threw all this work, only to come out with that assume best condition plane, the failure rate is 1 chance for 50 hours of flight.
Mill settings were set where they were for a reason,they are NOT wep settings. They didn't choose pressures that would normally damage an engine with continuous use.
Now consider all of the above from a game play/immersion/fun view point. It could be argued that even an unrealistic need to watch temp could be immersive , but as far as realistic , which is the argument many are trying to make, it would not be any more realistic then what we have now. But I believe most people would not find it immersive but simply a pain in the but.
HiTech
