More realism...

[RedBeard]

This probably sounds like flame bait, but I'd like more realism (probably means more challenging difficulty as well).  Here are some thoughts:

Weather patterns - we already have a bit of this, but it would be nice to tie more things into this.  In particular:

• non-standard temperatures - cold in winter, hot in summer, cooler in morning, warmer in afternoon.  Affects performance.  Potential for icing up high as temperature falls off and IFF humidity is appropriately high.  Humidity should increase with altitude until above the cloud layer.  Potential for multiple layers.
• Pressure zones - wind flows from hi-pressure zones to low pressure zones (affects direction).  Pressure zones move in semi-random directions on map.  Closer the pressure zones, the higher the wind between them.  Winds at altitude are generally higher than surface winds (drag affects direction and speed).
• Surface winds - Include wind socks and/or chimney smoke trails and surface winds up to 5-10 mph.  It's nuts having people takeoff and land from opposite directions on runways.  Let's get a little wind at ground level to make people think about what they are doing.
• Clouds based on weather conditions - clouds condense into layers when it cools (night, mornings) and are thicker in lower pressure zones (where humidity collects) and least thick in high pressure zones where dry air sinks.
• Low level turbulence - I don't think I've ever flown a plane in RL that didn't get bounced around at least some when below 3000'.  The more wind or more heating there is, the more turbulent down low it should be.

Vehicle mechanics possibilities:

• Manifold pressures - Changing RPM doesn't seem to affect manifold pressures.  If I'm at full power and pull back the RPM, the manifold pressure should climb.  If I do it too much, the engine should blow.
• Gun sight ranging - although I'm fairly used to flying now without this (as long as I fly a consistent range from a target), it could be interesting to add sight ring range size control.
• Torpedo sights - The PT boat needs a torpedo aiming mechanism (see http://mathscinotes.com/2013/06/aiming-torpedoes-from-a-pt-boat/)
• U-boats - It would be really interesting to be able to send out wolf packs of U-boats from sub pens to harrass fleets / shipping lanes (ocean equivalent of rail lines).
• Direct control of destroyers with depth charges - Ability to take control of a fleet destroyer(s) to drop depth charges on suspected or spotted U-boats.
• Cargo fleets - Ships supplies from factories across the water to island communities.  Equivalent to trains on land.

Strategic gameplay:

• Make logistics / interdiction more important:
   
  • Factories provide everything and everything must be moved to each airfield.
  • Aircraft are drone ferried from A/C factories to fields.
  • Fuel, ammo, oil are supplied to airfields by rail and truck convoy.  Rail from factory to depot.  Truck convoy from depot to base.  Rail lines can have switches to allow more than one route to a depot.
  • Reduction in supplies to a field/base means less less capabilities (e.g. less fuel/oil means shorter flights and/or restriction in number of flights that may leave a field per given unit of time).
  • Staying alive becomes as important as getting kills.  Losing an A/C depletes the available aircraft supplies at a field.  Depleting them too quickly could mean being required to fly something else or fly from somewhere else.
  • Damage is important.  Returning a damaged vehicle to a field puts it out of commission for a period of time until it can be repaired and returned to the available fleet of vehicles.

Squadron bonuses / losses:

• Squadrons pick a "home" field.  Flying from a home field could provide an extra bonus of some kind (e.g. perhaps a higher availability of resources for that squadron).  That makes that field important to that squadron in order to keep the bonuses it provides.

Anyway, the idea is that while flying and shooting things down or blowing things up is an interesting aspect, there should be deeper and more profound impacts that require people to think, work together, and react as a group.  It doesn't prevent the lone ranger from doing what they like, but weather and logistics should be important as they have always had a significant impact on war.  Also, knowing intimate details about how a vehicle works should improve your ability to use it effectively.  We need more detailed control over the planes and vehicles we have today.  That allows those that really want to get the most out of their plane/vehicle to fine tune it for a particular need or use it in ways that are more effective than default settings.

[hitech]

The only reason it sounds like flame bait is because you put it all under the heading of more realism.

Skip that and your list is fairly standard.

One item we already have is Manifold pressure does change with rpm if the turbo charger can no longer produce the desired settings.

HiTech

[RedBeard]

Ah, very good point.  I'd forgot about turbocharger waste gates.

Chalk one off the list.   

Red Beard

[icepac]

I feel the players could do a lot to promote realism with thier behavior.

[Vraciu]

Point of order.  Pulling a prop control all the way to the rear will kill the engine in airplanes designed to feather (multi-engine airplanes for example).

This hysteria with oversquaring (i.e. having more manifold pressure than RPM as in 21"/1900 RPM instead of 21"/2100 RPM) engines is a bit overblown.   Normally aspirated engines can be oversquared by quite a lot depending on the manufacturer.   Turbos can be oversquared by even more.

I don't think you'd blow the engine if you yanked the RPM back.   You'd start having all kinds of issues with the engine running like crap.  It might even just quit.   Can't say for certain, of course, since I've never done it.      But you can feather from max power.  I've done that more than once with no damage done.

In a training environment it's all about "climbing the hill and descending the hill" (Mixtures, Props, Throttles for increasing power, Throttles, Props, Mixtures for reducing power) but when it hits the fan, especially low, slow, and heavy that goes out the window.  I'm grabbing stuff by the handful on the way up.   I know of many who advocate being right there at the prop levers on takeoff in light twins to get into feather as soon as possible.   Having seen a smoking hole or two I can see why they think that way.

[RedBeard]

I wasn't trying to be hyper-sensitive to manifold pressure.  Originally, I didn't understand why the manifold pressure didn't increase (having experience with a normally aspirated Mooney), but Hitech set me straight and I understand that.  Yes, even the Mooney power settings allow for MP greater than RPM under normal flight conditions. 

There could still be various issues that aren't modeled today such as prop over speed, over heat permanently causing engine damage, mixture control, manual fuel tank switching (required for planes that didn't feed from all tanks), engine start sequences, etc.

I can kind of see not including mixture as many of the engines had an automatic mixture control.  However, starting a large radial engine is not as simple as pushing the E key.  You had to prime and crank the engine while counting blades and start when the engine was appropriately primed, otherwise you'd blow a cylinder head or flood it (my dad had great stories of T-28 students blowing cylinder heads on startup).  You wouldn't think this important to game play, but it makes a significant difference when trying to get into the air quickly and yet having to do things right to prevent something bad happening to the engine.  Vapor lock could be an issue for someone who shuts down for hot padding.

Regarding smoking holes, twins, and feathering, it seems the early P-38 was notorious for losing an engine and needing to feather.  I've noticed an impact in dialing back the RPM, but it's impossible to feather in AH3 (unless I've missed something).  I do note that there are other threads regarding prop feathering already though.

As far as RPM causing an engine to blow goes, I'm guessing that it would probably only affect normally aspirated engines (causing heat build up faster than normal) unless the turbo has a damaged waste gate.

Manual fuel tank selection is just one of those things.  Imagine your drop tank being empty so you punch it.  All of a sudden your engine starts to cough because you forgot to manually switch tanks before dropping the DT.  Combine this with air restart procedures and suddenly tank selection becomes important.  Another related thing is people that put the minimum fuel in the planes and takeoff for a quick fight and never worry about fuel.  If you had to remember to manually switch tanks in a fight, you might think twice about having minimal fuel and suddenly having a tank go dry in the middle of a turn fight.

Auto / combat trim is another topic, but right now, I'm not ready to give that up.

I guess the thing I was trying to get to was that a default or auto control that is provided today (auto mixture, engine start, fuel handling, turbo speed selection, trim) should be sub-optimal and there should be manual controls that allow people to improve on the sub-optimal auto behavior by learning how the plane really should work and using those controls to their optimum manual effect.

[Vraciu]

Not accusing you in particular, just making a general observation on this issue IRL.   

[JVboob]

I feel the players could do a lot to promote realism with thier behavior.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[oboe]

Strategic gameplay:

• Make logistics / interdiction more important:
   
  • Factories provide everything and everything must be moved to each airfield.
  • Aircraft are drone ferried from A/C factories to fields.
  • Fuel, ammo, oil are supplied to airfields by rail and truck convoy.  Rail from factory to depot.  Truck convoy from depot to base.  Rail lines can have switches to allow more than one route to a depot.
  • Reduction in supplies to a field/base means less less capabilities (e.g. less fuel/oil means shorter flights and/or restriction in number of flights that may leave a field per given unit of time).
  • Staying alive becomes as important as getting kills.  Losing an A/C depletes the available aircraft supplies at a field.  Depleting them too quickly could mean being required to fly something else or fly from somewhere else.
  • Damage is important.  Returning a damaged vehicle to a field puts it out of commission for a period of time until it can be repaired and returned to the available fleet of vehicles.

Squadron bonuses / losses:

• Squadrons pick a "home" field.  Flying from a home field could provide an extra bonus of some kind (e.g. perhaps a higher availability of resources for that squadron).  That makes that field important to that squadron in order to keep the bonuses it provides.

I really like many of your ideas on strategic gameplay, and would add that Ports could become "factories" of a sort by receiving trade goods and supplies and unloading/storing them at port warehouses - which feed into the rail system, the same as factories would.   Ports and dockside warehouses, rail yards and rolling stock then become valid targets, affecting the enemy's ability to supply bases to 100%.

Also like the idea of home fields for squads; though I'm not sure what kind of carrot could be offered - maybe a break from ENY limitations, or reduction in perk costs, or as you say access to full resources (maybe ordnance, or 100% fuel when not available for others at this field)

[caldera]

The realism I would like to see implemented is the requirement to engage the enemy.  Real WWII pilots didn't avoid fighting when they lacked supreme advantage.

[Skuzzy]

The realism I would like to see implemented is the requirement to engage the enemy.  Real WWII pilots didn't avoid fighting when they lacked supreme advantage.

I'll dispute this.  I had a personal phone call from a WW2 P38 pilot after he started playing the game and spent a good deal of time on the phone with him listening to his stories.

One in particular involved him and his wingman doing their best to outrun a couple of enemy fighters because they had lost the advantage in the fight.  They did a 1G dive to the deck and extended away.  I laughed a bit when he said, "I don't think the cows appreciated us mowing their field".

Just saying.

[Ack-Ack]

I guess the thing I was trying to get to was that a default or auto control that is provided today (auto mixture, engine start, fuel handling, turbo speed selection, trim) should be sub-optimal and there should be manual controls that allow people to improve on the sub-optimal auto behavior by learning how the plane really should work and using those controls to their optimum manual effect.

The auto features (trim, fuel, etc.) were implemented for game play reasons.  This is a combat sim, and as such game play concessions were made for the player to focus on the combat aspects of game.  That is why we have a simplified engine management system, auto-fuel, etc.

[ImADot]

The auto features (trim, fuel, etc.) were implemented for game play reasons.  This is a combat sim, and as such game play concessions were made for the player to focus on the combat aspects of game.  That is why we have a simplified engine management system, auto-fuel, etc.

Exactly why I play here; I want to fly a good flight model, and fight other humans in WW2 planes. I also really like complex simulations, but I'd rather not have to mess with fuel mixes, supercharger settings, and the dozens of other "realism" things being asking for in the OP. Just let me fly and fight.

[icepac]

Many action reports I've seen have the phrase "saw the enemy above and climbed to them"

[Vraciu]

Exactly why I play here; I want to fly a good flight model, and fight other humans in WW2 planes. I also really like complex simulations, but I'd rather not have to mess with fuel mixes, supercharger settings, and the dozens of other "realism" things being asking for in the OP. Just let me fly and fight.

The auto features (trim, fuel, etc.) were implemented for game play reasons.  This is a combat sim, and as such game play concessions were made for the player to focus on the combat aspects of game.  That is why we have a simplified engine management system, auto-fuel, etc.

I will also add, based on personal experience, that a keyboard, mouse, and game stick are poor substitutes for actual cockpit controls.   The concessions made are, IMHO, a balanced tradeoff to overcome this limitation.