Graduated damage

[earl1937]

I was reading about the P51s used to fight over Japan late in the Second War and thought it would be much more realistic and a big immersion change to have damage be scalable. For example in one case a pilot noticed his oil pressure dropping. He did not get the big splatter but had to be in tune with his aircraft and monitor all those gauges that are in there. It would also give much more emphasis on the science of flying than the arcade feel that detracts some for players that want to depend on known variables in a sim.

  Good idea!!! What really chaps my "Fanny" is the fact that every engine hit covers your windshield in oil!!! That was never the case in most engine hits that I ever heard of. Most times, if not every time, an oil leak would flow back to the firewall, then downward and along the bottom of the aircraft. Sometimes you would see oil seaping along the top back half of the cowling, but most times, no. The only time i can think of for the windshield to become covered in oil, is if someone got a lucky shot and shot the prop governor off the crankcase, then it might blow back along the top of the cowling. The only other time would be on the "ho" shot, then if the front of the crankcase was punctured, then you might have a windshield covered with oil. Of course, Aces High had to come up with some sort of consistant damage to engines, so I guess we will have to put up with the windshield covered with oil, even though you might only have a hit in the reserve oil tank or damage to a push rod housing. At least the way they have it programed into the game, you know you have about 6 min's before the ole fan stops turning!



















 

[colmbo]

For playability lets leave the probability of failure of a undamaged engine at 1%.

1% is probably way to high.  I've made somewhere around 6000-6500 flights in which I've had 7 engine failures on single-engine aircraft (many, many pilots never have an engine failure).  That works out to about a .001% chance per flight of an engine failure if I've done the math correctly.

[Hazard69]

No. You want people to leave? Then give them a chance that their plane just won't work even if they haven't taken damage. There's NOTHING that will piss off or frustrate a player more than their plane randomly crapping out for no good reason other than probability.

You obviously missed parts of my post, here it is again with appropriate areas highlighted:

What I'd like to see more often are random engine malfunctions. Real life engines weren't (still aren't 100% reliable). For playability lets leave the probability of failure of a undamaged engine at 1%. So 99% of the time, the engine wont fail at take off or something. Now if the engine area takes damage (not necessarily an oil or radiator hit, just bullet holes) then increase that failure %. So if engine 2 is shot up (but not leaking), it might fail later, the longer you linger.

I wonder if the game currently allows for an engine failure from damage without the oil or radiator being damaged.

EDIT:

1% is probably way to high.  I've made somewhere around 6000-6500 flights in which I've had 7 engine failures on single-engine aircraft (many, many pilots never have an engine failure).  That works out to about a .001% chance per flight of an engine failure if I've done the math correctly.

These WW2 birds you been flying? Modern engines are ridiculously reliable as compared to the old weather worn, shortage infested, beaten up old buggers.....

Still, I get your point.......So lets make it a 100% for normal operations, but we can certainly put in a % modifier for failure after you've had a few bullets pumped in can't we?

[guncrasher]

You obviously missed parts of my post, here it is again with appropriate areas highlighted:

EDIT:
These WW2 birds you been flying? Modern engines are ridiculously reliable as compared to the old weather worn, shortage infested, beaten up old buggers.....

Still, I get your point.......So lets make it a 100% for normal operations, but we can certainly put in a % modifier for failure after you've had a few bullets pumped in can't we?

but what you need to think about is what would be the advantage from a game point of view?  having random engine failures just for the sake of random engine failures would only get players upset and make them quit the game.  so it's a lose-lose situation for everybody.

midway

[sparky1]

+1 

[Hazard69]

but what you need to think about is what would be the advantage from a game point of view?  having random engine failures just for the sake of random engine failures would only get players upset and make them quit the game.  so it's a lose-lose situation for everybody.

midway

I'm willing to concede on the random engine failure point. I suppose that would take realism a bit too far, but I will not do so on the engine scaled damaging idea. 

It might actually tone down some the 'fly till you die' mentality where people will stay engaged till they either go boom or are dropping to the ground like a brick, irrespective of whatever they are missing. As it stand right now:

Took 5 hits to engine, oil leak: I can fly for another 8-10 mins.
Took 5 hits to engine, radiator leak: I can fly for another 5-6 mins.
Took 5 hits to engine, no oil/radiator leak: I can fly till I die or run out of fuel.

I'd rather have: Took 5 hits to engine, no oil/radiator leak: Hmm, now do I stay engaged or head home.

Now I know that thats not what all the furballers would like, but it makes the game more engaging, more realistic and less arcade-ish.

That will pull in people rather than dispel them.

[Saxman]

As it stand right now:

Took 5 hits to engine, oil leak: I can fly for another 8-10 mins.
Took 5 hits to engine, radiator leak: I can fly for another 5-6 mins.
Took 5 hits to engine, no oil/radiator leak: I can fly till I die or run out of fuel.

Radiator damage is completely separate from engine damage, FYI. If your radiator gets holed, it's not because someone put a bunch of rounds in your engine.

[SmokinLoon]

Radiator damage is completely separate from engine damage, FYI. If your radiator gets holed, it's not because someone put a bunch of rounds in your engine.

But they are all related.  Point being it is a component of the engine.

[titanic3]

No. You want people to leave? Then give them a chance that their plane just won't work even if they haven't taken damage. There's NOTHING that will piss off or frustrate a player more than their plane randomly crapping out for no good reason other than probability.

You mean like the stupidly modeled puffy ack? Went on to fly last night, popped 3K, instant fuel hit. Figured it was just terrible luck. Rolled again, popped 3K, boom, engine hit. Said eff this and went to the DA.

[caldera]

Adding randomly coded failures is a bad idea for any reason. 

As far as the general wish for graduated damage, it will be simple to implement.  All HTC has to do is rewrite the flight model; adding complexities for levels of damage for each damageable part, as well as multiple new graphics models that depict varying levels of damage.  For every plane in the game. 

Maybe after the planes with 1999 graphics models get updated, they will get right on that. 

[Hazard69]

Well the graphics can catch up later (I've been waiting on the 'jammed flap' graphic' since 1999) .

I'm thinking why limit it to just control surfaces. We have preset damage limits for wings and tails as well. Why not use that? If the wing has reached 30% of it max damage limit, let it produce 10-20% less lift. (Ofc thats not really real world accurate where it would greatly depend on the location of the damage etc.) but it would be a start.
 
And damage implementation for these isn't a seperate 3D object. Just a common texture overlay that can be applied generically to all aircraft (like the holes and tears than we currently have) would be sufficient. Thats the easier way to implement it imho.

Edit:

Radiator damage is completely separate from engine damage, FYI. If your radiator gets holed, it's not because someone put a bunch of rounds in your engine.

As someone who flies the 38 a lot, I appreciate that Sax, however the point I'm trying to make is we don't really model engine damage due to bullets being pumped into it atm. If it didnt completely die when it got hit, it wont die ever. We only model, oil system damage, radiator system damage and complete engine failure.

[Wiley]

Adding randomly coded failures is a bad idea for any reason. 

As far as the general wish for graduated damage, it will be simple to implement.  All HTC has to do is rewrite the flight model; adding complexities for levels of damage for each damageable part, as well as multiple new graphics models that depict varying levels of damage.  For every plane in the game. 

Maybe after the planes with 1999 graphics models get updated, they will get right on that. 

Not quite what they'd HAVE to do.  They could just add a modifier to every component of the plane,like "condition", and have damage change condition from 100 to 66 to 33 to 0 which would be like it is now.

Maybe keep the power train parts the same as it is now, only apply it to control surfaces and flight surfaces.  Have 2 graphics: pristine and damaged for feedback.

Have the condition mod affect whatever the part does.  Rudder at 33 condition dors 33 percent of its normal authority.  Wing at 33 would give 33 percent of its normal lift, etc.

Possibly tweak the values on some planes if for example a wing at 33 is never useful in any way on some planes.

Profit.

Wiley.

[guncrasher]

Not quite what they'd HAVE to do.  They could just add a modifier to every component of the plane,like "condition", and have damage change condition from 100 to 66 to 33 to 0 which would be like it is now.

Maybe keep the power train parts the same as it is now, only apply it to control surfaces and flight surfaces.  Have 2 graphics: pristine and damaged for feedback.

Have the condition mod affect whatever the part does.  Rudder at 33 condition dors 33 percent of its normal authority.  Wing at 33 would give 33 percent of its normal lift, etc.

Possibly tweak the values on some planes if for example a wing at 33 is never useful in any way on some planes.

Profit.

Wiley.

it is a waste of time.  I would rather have them fix the airplanes that fly at full spend with only a wing and a 1/2 left.


midway

[Ninthmessiah]

I like your graduated damage suggestion as historically accurate and as an addition to immersion.  But I like we gamey-ness we have now better.

Consider this...  My flaps work at 100% until they are completely destroyed.  What you are suggesting would put me in a fight where one of my flaps isnt working correctly because it took a ping or two.  That flap is either providing too much or too little lift in one wing, causing a slight roll. 

As the game is currently, my flaps would be at 100% and I would not be rolling.  It's gamey, but I would rather have everything running tip top until the end.  Your suggestion would have us noticing surface failures at the slightest of damage. 

Maybe this is what people want?

Now if they added hinges, that would be cool way to separate total failure from partial.  In some cases this would add longevity to a part that never took a hit on the hinge.  But now I'm adding a wish on top of a wish.  I just meant to play devil's advocate.

[Wiley]

it is a waste of time.  I would rather have them fix the airplanes that fly at full spend with only a wing and a 1/2 left.


midway

Why would missing half a wing slow it down?  It would have less lift, sure, but would the uncoordinatedness you'd need to have for somewhat level flight affect it that much?

Wiley.