Graduated damage

[Wiley]

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. 

I think there'd definitely be two camps on something like this.

What I dislike about the current system is people can get in front of you for a quick snapshot nearly consequence free, sometimes 3 or 4 times.  Realism is part of it, but also from a gaming perspective a guy that's let his opponent get guns on him, for however brief a time should not have his plane in factory showroom condition until that last bullet hits the part and it falls off.

Just MHO.  My tastes are quite often at odds with the majority.

Ideally, I'd like to have it where shots on a flight surface lower the G tolerence for it and make it more prone to structural failure if they pull too hard.  That might be asking a bit much though.

Devil's advocating that for a moment, it could be the reason they haven't done it is because it might encourage spraying at a guy from anywhere on the way in just to get some kind of hits on him and degrade his performance so you have a better chance once the fight starts.  The way it is now, you're better off in most cases waiting for the quality shot.

I still think it would be a better system, and would add a lot more to the game than more eye candy or maps.

Wiley.

[Devonai]

Question:  What happens (generally) in real life when an aircraft takes damage vis a vis cockpit controls?  I've seen modern footage of pilots trying to restart stalled engines during flight; sometimes they can and sometimes they can't.

If HTC were to implement a more nuanced damage system, would there be any point to jabbing at your keyboard as if you were in the cockpit, trying to restart an engine, stomping on your rudder or yanking your yolk to try and free a stuck control surface, or pulling on your flaps lever for the same reason?  Would there be any realism to "fixing" a problem purely by cockpit controls?

It seems to me that it might be cool to unstick a control surface or flap by yanking on the cables enough, or get an extra few minutes of engine time by forcing a restart (the crew chief can complain about it later).  It would be fun to exit a fight, mess around for a minute to try to fix a problem, and then either return to the fight or RTB.

[Tinkles]

Question:  What happens (generally) in real life when an aircraft takes damage vis a vis cockpit controls?  I've seen modern footage of pilots trying to restart stalled engines during flight; sometimes they can and sometimes they can't.

If HTC were to implement a more nuanced damage system, would there be any point to jabbing at your keyboard as if you were in the cockpit, trying to restart an engine, stomping on your rudder or yanking your yolk to try and free a stuck control surface, or pulling on your flaps lever for the same reason?  Would there be any realism to "fixing" a problem purely by cockpit controls?

It seems to me that it might be cool to unstick a control surface or flap by yanking on the cables enough, or get an extra few minutes of engine time by forcing a restart (the crew chief can complain about it later).  It would be fun to exit a fight, mess around for a minute to try to fix a problem, and then either return to the fight or RTB.

The problem overall that I see with more realistic things (like graduated damage) and "random failures" I.E. engine, radiator etc..   The problem is, in real life you would have to deal with the problem only when playing out (taking hours upon hours of time, some pilots only few a few sorties others, quite a few).  Point being, why would I want to deal with mundane controls over and over.  If I die, in real life- I'm dead, don't have to deal with any of the problems again.  However, in Aces High I have to deal with all of these problems again, each and every time.  I wouldn't find that fun. 

It's a nice concept overall and I do support it.  But is it something we REALLY want?  Sure I'm all for realism and historical accuracy, but then it gets old after awhile, doing the same repetitive tasks over and over, dying from the same engine failures or radiator hits. Sure, it's realistic, but is that why you want to get a kill?  You want to get the "proxy" kill from a target who had plane troubles?  Or be a victim of a kill, because your plane has troubles?    I create my own troubles in my planes I don't need any assistance with that.

So overall, I say it would be a nice feature; but look at it in the long-run, would it be worth it overall?

Just my thought.

Respectively,

Tinkles

 

[Devonai]

Just to be clear I am only in support of damage from combat.  I do not want random mechanical failures.

[Wiley]

Just to be clear I am only in support of damage from combat.  I do not want random mechanical failures.

Ditto me.  Random malfunctions are just not good for gameplay.

Wiley.

[Hazard69]

Sheesh people let the random failures go already! I really seem to have stirred up a hornet's by suggesting for the possibility of 1% (which at the time I believed would make it almost impossible to occur) and have since agreed to not being a good idea! 

Apologies if I didn't make that clear enough in my earlier post. 

I'm willing to concede on the random engine failure point. I suppose that would take realism a bit too far.................

[ink]

Sheesh people let the random failures go already! I really seem to have stirred up a hornet's by suggesting for the possibility of 1% (which at the time I believed would make it almost impossible to occur) and have since agreed to not being a good idea! 

Apologies if I didn't make that clear enough in my earlier post. 

1 question

why does it matter to you.......if a guy wants to fly till he is dead or out of ammo?


you suggest stopping this type of "behavior"....this is exactly how I fly and have flown since tour 52.....I am doing something wrong

[Brakechk]

The problem overall that I see with more realistic things (like graduated damage) and "random failures" I.E. engine, radiator etc..   The problem is, in real life you would have to deal with the problem only when playing out (taking hours upon hours of time, some pilots only few a few sorties others, quite a few).  Point being, why would I want to deal with mundane controls over and over.  If I die, in real life- I'm dead, don't have to deal with any of the problems again.  However, in Aces High I have to deal with all of these problems again, each and every time.  I wouldn't find that fun. 

It's a nice concept overall and I do support it.  But is it something we REALLY want?  Sure I'm all for realism and historical accuracy, but then it gets old after awhile, doing the same repetitive tasks over and over, dying from the same engine failures or radiator hits. Sure, it's realistic, but is that why you want to get a kill?  You want to get the "proxy" kill from a target who had plane troubles?  Or be a victim of a kill, because your plane has troubles?    I create my own troubles in my planes I don't need any assistance with that.

So overall, I say it would be a nice feature; but look at it in the long-run, would it be worth it overall?

Just my thought.

Respectively,

Tinkles

 

Ditto

Zaphod

[bozon]

The damage modeling has always been AH's weakest point. Sure, other games may have better graphics, but that has little practical effect on the game play, while damage modeling has a much greater impact.

Random damage and malfunctions is not good for gameplay. Do not go down that road, you will not like where it ends, if it ends at all.

[pappy59]

+1

I think this would be more realistic, than rudders and alerons just falling off... make the flight profile better

[manglex1]

+1

[Stellaris]

Random damage.  Nope.
Much more nuanced damage.  Yep.

I'd even vote to ditch the damage list, to encourage a greater one-ness with the aircraft.

Also, I loathe getting my canopy plastered in oil every single time!!

[The Fugitive]

Random damage.  Nope.
Much more nuanced damage.  Yep.

I'd even vote to ditch the damage list, to encourage a greater one-ness with the aircraft.

Also, I loathe getting my canopy plastered in oil every single time!!

Stop going for the HO and you will notice that doesn't happen as much!