Option for manual flap operation

[Ghosth]

Well yes, and you still get the huge drag when you try to fly straight and level without flaps.
And trimming it out for level flight would probably be a huge pain in the behind with flaps stuck.

If the fight extends the guy with stuck flaps is not going to accelerate near as fast.

I don't think anyone would break them intentionally krusty, your just being silly.

No, that just rewards folks that break them intentionally. You still get the lift, right? You still get the way-efficient boost this game has with flaps, right?

[Ack-Ack]

Unfortunate indeed. What is his reasoning ? Is there any?

Game design reasons to give players one less thing to worry about in a fight.  he also said that the auto-flaps was the better of the two game design choices.  He could model them as it is now, flaps auto-retract when you reach speed or have them jam as soon as flaps hit the max speed for the setting.  Another issue was where to set the fail point, at what speed?

Personally, I hate the auto-retracting flaps.  I cut my teeth in AW where we had full control of our flaps and if had them deployed beyond the speed for the flap setting, we ran the very real risk of having them jam.  I like having full control over my flaps and if I make the mistake of overspeeding with them deployed then I should run the very real risk of having them jam.

Unfortunately, as I said, auto-retracting flaps is something that is here to stay.


ack-ack

[olskool2]

I still don't understand the difference in letting us run the risk of breaking our flaps for a small advantage as being any different from the WW1 governor setting (barring modeling issues), which allows us to run the risk of breaking our engine for a small advantage in dive speed.

It just seems like hypocrisy.

Who is scared of getting shot down by a plane with jammed flaps? If you can't extend away from that (even OTD) you're doing something very very wrong.

[gyrene81]

It has to do with lack of supporting evidence in the form of real world documentation that shows things like at 463kph plane <blahblah> model 4 experienced <blahblah> damage when <blahblah> degrees of flaps were deployed at <blahblah> elevation.

Aside from one small piece of U.S. military intel from 1944, that stated the Luftwaffe put out a memorandum of maximum speeds for safe flap deployment at various altitudes, I haven't found anything concrete...and only the pilot manuals show much of anything for speed warnings...can't blame HTC for going with playability over anecdotal evidence.

[boomerlu]

The whole flap thing has been discussed ad nauseum... just ask thorsim.

The main problem is it would take quite a lot of programming legwork to model structural failure accurately. If that isn't done, then we're left with anecodotal evidence as to flap failure.

[W7LPNRICK]

+1  always thought that was one of the best things about the Jug, so I say YES! 

[Simba]

I'll leave the flaps debate alone but how about manually-operated undercarriages? The Polikarpov I-16 and Grumman F4F Wildcat both had a winding handle to raise their mainwheels, necessitating a one-handed climb-out while the pilot cranked up the gear. This is simulated in IL-2 by mapping a key to the function which is repeatedly pressed until the 'wheels-up' lights come on - or not, if it hasn't been pressed enough times.

 

[Krusty]

I don't think anyone would break them intentionally krusty, your just being silly.

No, I'm not. Once they "break" and are gone, you still get that lift. They won't retract if you pass the speed at which they break. Ever lose a flap in AH then try diving away? It still produces lift even though you've exceeded the speed that auto-retracts your remaining flap. Most furballer yank-n-bankers don't care much about getting through a fight intact. They just want their flaps to stay out longer. Well, if they JAM they're down permanently. I can see it being used more often than not in the "get a kill, auger, reup, repeat" mentality of most parts of the MA.

[Kweassa]

 It's simple, really.


 People want to get rid of auto-retraction in the premise that;

(1) An arbitrary system that implements a "chance to jam" or "chance to break" will be used

(2) This "chance" also means that there is a "chance" to retain the benefits of the flaps over the threshold without it jamming or breaking

(3) Therefore, people will take that "chance"


 Basically, those who support the removal of auto-retraction view the auto-retraction system as being denied a "chance" (to willingly risk physical harm to their own planes) to shoot down an enemy plane. However, in truth, the loss of control (in terms of airspeed) of their own planes that causes the flaps to retract, is basically the same thing as turning too tight to step over the threshold and stalling out. Evidently, nobody asks to be given a chance to "not stall out" when they've already stalled out. What the "get rid of auto-retraction" folk want, is to get a chance for the flap benefits to remain over speeds at which it should not be - because, they expect the "chance" system to be used.


 Hitech has made it clear that the only possible way of implementation when auto-retraction is gone, is to have the flaps damaged the moment they step over the speed threshold. You can bet your bellybutton that the "get rid of auto-retraction" folk will not be using the manual flap control system if it is implemented in this manner - at least, not in the sense they'd have expected it to be, since in this case manual flap management literally offers no extra benefit.

 ...and that's where the heart of this 'auto-retraction' debate lies. It's not really about auto/manual management, but rather about that "extra benefit".






 

[Kweassa]

 (ps) Ofcourse, I do admit the possibility of a rare few players who would still want manual flap operation in the manner Hitech says it would be implemented (if, auto-retraction is to be removed in the first place). To these few the self-gratification factor would be enough to risk damage.

 However, on a gross level, removing the auto-retraction means (in the way Hitech would) that the 'safety buffer' of auto-retraction is gone. Everytime you step over even a meager 1 mph over the line, bye bye flaps.

 This would actually mean people would use flaps much less aggressively than now, since the dangers of busted flaps would make most people much more conservative in its operation as a precaution.


 So in this sense, one can get a glimpse on what the 'auto-retraction' debate is all about.

 

 

[gyrene81]

Actually Kweassa, speaking for myself and some others who enjoy more immersion than the fantasy arcade crowd likes...you're just a bit off on the reasoning for it.

[Kweassa]

Actually Kweassa, speaking for myself and some others who enjoy more immersion than the fantasy arcade crowd likes...you're just a bit off on the reasoning for it.

Interesting. Whichever way the manual retraction is depicted its neither more "immersive" nor any more "real".

This "immersion" is a favorite excuse for many, and yet hardly ever justified when it needs to be, and has a tendency of popping up in all the wrong places. For instance, people could essentially ask for the same line of reasoning to be applied for the WEP system - except the frequency of such is hardly comparable to what it is with the flaps, no?

I mean, I don't exactly see that many people arguing that for sake of immersion that the WEP system needs to be turned manual.

Why is that? Simple again - it's because you can't just turn the WEP up for a precious few seconds to push your plane into a position to willingly risk damage to your plane to get a kill, unlike how it is with flaps, which people expect leniency and wish "If only my flaps held down a bit longer... Grrrr..."

Well in the same light of reasoning, let's also ask for a random 'chance' of failure or jamming to be applied to all the guns. I'm sure you're all in support for that.

[gyrene81]

Interesting. Whichever way the manual retraction is depicted its neither more "immersive" nor any more "real".

This "immersion" is a favorite excuse for many, and yet hardly ever justified when it needs to be, and has a tendency of popping up in all the wrong places. For instance, people could essentially ask for the same line of reasoning to be applied for the WEP system - except the frequency of such is hardly comparable to what it is with the flaps, no?

I mean, I don't exactly see that many people arguing that for sake of immersion that the WEP system needs to be turned manual.

Why is that? Simple again - it's because you can't just turn the WEP up for a precious few seconds to push your plane into a position to willingly risk damage to your plane to get a kill, unlike how it is with flaps, which people expect leniency and wish "If only my flaps held down a bit longer... Grrrr..."

How is the WEP system automatic in AH? Not sure what you're talking about on that one. If you're thinking of the systems that used additives, it wasn't a process of push button A, then toggle switch B. I think the engines that used 2 stage turbos should have more than 1 setting in AH, not the existing all or nothing.
On my part, I don't use excuses for wanting something enabled. Yes, it's nice not to have to deal with a lot of things that could be included so the list of things asked for is "selective". I don't look for any "leniency" on anything, especially the flaps...right now they are all programmed based on pilot operation manuals, and the deployment levels are all pretty much the same across the board...personally, I'd rather have more control. Planes with only manual flap mechanisms should not have automated flap deployment and more than 5 increments of flap deployment...and no planes should have automated flap retraction (except maybe the N1K2)...but I do understand how and why the present system is in place and all the wishing in the world isn't going to change it.

Well in the same light of reasoning, let's also ask for a random 'chance' of failure or jamming to be applied to all the guns. I'm sure you're all in support for that.

Yes I would support that. It was more common than people want to think about, but it would be complicated to program...especially without corresponding elemental effects in the environment. Same with engine cooling management systems...hydraulic systems...electrical systems, etc... WWII aircraft were not objects of human perfection in manufacturing...but trying to recreate those imperfections in a virtual environment and have people like it, is not possible.

[Tilt]

How is the WEP system automatic in AH?

It switches off before destroying your engine....its also a very simple mechanism that "stands in for" the  many differring WEP effects that occurred in RL.

This is an old chesnut.

IMO I would like flaps modelled so that they could be deployed to a point of damage.... there is alot of debate above about whether that would make it more or less gamey.

Actually that really depends upon the actual model used to determine when they should be damaged and what the efffects of that damage may be. (they may jam or fall off or simply flap about with a broken actuator or any combination). This may induce less drag, more drag uneven drag etc according to the damage rendered.

if I over speed my gear it breaks...... if I over dive my A20 I lose wing control surfaces, if I pull too much high speed g in my spit/ KI84 I risk my wings.  For me the flaps fall within the same sort of control v damage envelope which would be better in game. However the challenge is to get the balance right between penalty and reward when choosing full manual control.

[Krusty]

Actually, WEP, like GEAR, like ENGINE START, represents a pilot action. It's not a 1:1 ratio, where 1 button in game equals 1 button in real life.

On top of that, WEP "cuts off" at the temperature/time limits dictated to pilots, so the wep turning OFF is a representation of the PILOT turning it off because he is overheating too much. It's only automatic in that it kicks off for us if we leave it on too long. The mechanism is much simpler in real life: the pilot turns it off.

So, in essence, it's identical to the way flaps auto-retract right now. The game codes both so that pilots do not abuse either, and adhere to the official restrictions placed on planes