Suggestions for Better Damage Model

[MRPLUTO]

With the current damage model, a pilot kill results in the plane instantly exploding.  Would it be possible to have the plane go slowly out of control instead?  Is it possible for the pilot to go back to a friendly tower while the plane continues on?

I read of an incident in WW2 in which an Allied pilot saw a Spitfire heading west, straight and level, out into the North Atlantic.  Thinking he was lost, he tried to raise him on the radio, and when that failed, chased him down.  When he got close, he realized the pilot was dead, killed by a burst to the cockpit.  The pilot must have been heading home, with the plane perfectly trimmed, when he was bounced and killed, but the plane was virtually undamaged, so it kept right on flying.  

With AH's auto-pilot, there would have to be some way to make the plane go out of control once the pilot was dead, or it would just fly until it ran out of fuel, hit a mountain, or was shot down (again).

******

Gun camera footage often shows big puffs of black smoke from engines when they get hit.  Could malfunctioning engines occaisionally belch a big puff, too?

Also, instead of that tiny flame along the fuselage, how about a big sheet of flame with lots of smoke when a wing tank ignites?  It wouldn't have to last but 10 or 20 seconds, until the wing came off or the plane blew up.

Speaking of planes blowing up, could some way be found to make the explosion look more realistic?  Instead of a round explosion, wouldn't a few, heavier parts like the engine, continue tumbling through the air?

******

I have no idea what programming difficulties these ideas might cause.

MRPLUTO  VMF-323 ~Death Rattlers~  MAG-33

P.S.  How about having the gear drop down when the hydraulic system is hit?

[MRPLUTO]

Why are people ignoring my brilliant ideas?

[spiegel]

its a good idea.. but when your pilot dies and your plane is flying perfectly straight... do you really want to wait for your plane to crash to go back to tower???  it wont happen if you have it on auto... unless you hit a mountian along the way..

[Gooss]

in the presence of such brilliance?

[Shiva]

One of the things that annoys me about the current damage model is the 'all or nothing' aspect of the various damage types. Some damage effects are all-or-nothing -- either you have a fuel/oil leak or you don't, for example. But others don't have to be. The flight model already handles what happens when you lose a part of the airframe, like an aileron, rudder, elevator, horizontal stabilizer, etc. While complete fidelity would require that damage effects to a component be modelled down to miniscule increments as a component gets chewed into uselessness, I think that it would add significantly to the feel of the game if flight components had a 'damaged' step between 'okay' and 'destroyed', indicated by the component turning yellow on the damage display, where the component would only work at 50% effectiveness. So you could get an aileron shot up but not away, and still have some control authority but less maneuverability. A damaged wing, for example, would reduce the lift on that side, forcing you to compensate with trim to try to keep your plane stable.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's simple and may not be too hard to implement.

[Bodhi]

To begin with, ailerons do not simply fall off.  On most aircraft the size of hit required to take the aileron completely off would be catastrophic to the entire wing.  The counter to this is that it is easier to jam the control surface in it's current configuration as to the time the damage occured.  It can be as simple as the trailing edge skin being jammed into the control surface to as complicated as a hole blowing through the wing expanding the aileron well aft causing stoppage.  Lets also not forget about control cables... they are integral parts of WW2 aircraft.  It was not uncommon for them to be sliced through, or blown off of pulleys.  All in all, the damage model we currently have is basic, but it does the job, and anything more is just too much to ask at this juncture.

[Steve]

This game is a blast.

[Rude]

Golly....ya think that maybe being a multiplayer online sim might come into play here?

Or, how about vid cards of the GF3 and up variety still not being the norm for the vast majority of players?

Oh, here's a good one...ya think HT might have already planned for these improvements or do you really believe he is that clueless?

I too share in your hope of better things to come...the difference being, is that I have some degree of faith in the developers and am satisfied with AH in it's current form, enough to at least have fun.

[Yippee38]

I'm with you 100% Rude.

However, I think these threads are great "Wouldn't it be great if...." types of things.  Besides, who know?  Maybe somebody will suggest something that would be do-able within the scope of HT's plan that he didn't think of before.

I think it would be cool if you could lose instruments, or instrument systems.  Can you image flying a formation of 17s otw to target and flak takes out your pitot system?  Now you have to fly any of those instruments.  Better yet, make the autopilot damageable.  

[MRPLUTO]

Autopilot is damagable, in that if parts fall off your plane, the autopilot stops working very well, maybe not at all.

Spiegel:  I suggested that if the pilot gets hit the plane "automatically" begin to go out of control so that it doesn't just fly on and on.

Rude:  Just making some suggestions...don't worry, I'll still be sure to have fun



MRPLUTO  VMF-323  ~Death Rattlers~  MAG-33

[brendo]

Rude, I find you Rude.

Good suggestions MrPluto.