Things that could be improved in AH2 IMHO

[F4UDOA]

This is not a squeak session.

I am an AH diehard. Just want some feedback on possible improvements that could be made without breaking the bank.

1. Aircraft Icons- The A/C ident icons need to change with range. Greater than 5K away should be generic fighter. From 1k to 5k should be fighter type ie. P-38, F6F. From Zero to 1K you get the specific fighter type IE F4U-4, Spit IX and such. It would change the perk plane delema as well.

2. Engine managment- We need it, Enough said. No way should we be buzzingaround at full MAP with no consequence. I'm not saying we should be using cowl flaps and intercooler controls for carb air temp I just think the future of flight simms is realism and we should be using some engine management for flights over say 10minutes continious. Janes WW2 Fighters had that much 5 years ago.

3. Damage model- I understand that the graphics engine limits what is visually possible but the one thing visually that I don't like is the entire tail section of a F4U.P-47 or F6F comming off for any reason other than a direct hit from ack or a hard landing. It just didn't happen that way. Also there is no way and F4U should loose it's wing at the fuselauge. The wing spar out to the wing fold is one solid piece of welded steel. No way that is coming off either. It should break at the wing folding mechanism.

4. Fuel and Ammo managment- We should have a slider bar for the ammount of both fuel and ammo we take up. It is silly to take 2400 rounds of .50cal everytime I takeoff in an F4U. That is 700LBS of ammo. If I take off with 75% fuel and 50% ammo in an F4U-1D then I have reduced my 100% takeoff weight from 12,175LBS to 11,283LBS and still have as much .50cal ammo than a fully loaded P-51B.

What does that mean to me?

That means my wing loading is now better (35.93) which is just as good as a fully loaded NIK2-J (35.7).    

5. Stall Speeds- I have an open discussion with HT on this so I'm going to wait and see.

Anyway that's my .02 cents if any cares or comments.

[Urchin]

1. Aircraft Icons- The A/C ident icons need to change with range. Greater than 5K away should be generic fighter. From 1k to 5k should be fighter type ie. P-38, F6F. From Zero to 1K you get the specific fighter type IE F4U-4, Spit IX and such. It would change the perk plane delema as well.

Good idea, I think that would keep the rather underperforming perk planes (Spit 14, F4U4, Ta-152) a little safer from the drooling hordes of La-7s and Spit/N1Ks.

2. Engine managment- We need it, Enough said. No way should we be buzzingaround at full MAP with no consequence. I'm not saying we should be using cowl flaps and intercooler controls for carb air temp I just think the future of flight simms is realism and we should be using some engine management for flights over say 10minutes continious. Janes WW2 Fighters had that much 5 years ago.

Haven't played much with this, I guess it would depend on how complicated it was.  Maybe if everyone had a simplified version where just the throttle control handled the fuel mix, man pressure, etc. it would be OK, any more complex than that and you aren't aiming at a 'mainstream' audience anymore.

3. Damage model- I understand that the graphics engine limits what is visually possible but the one thing visually that I don't like is the entire tail section of a F4U.P-47 or F6F comming off for any reason other than a direct hit from ack or a hard landing. It just didn't happen that way. Also there is no way and F4U should loose it's wing at the fuselauge. The wing spar out to the wing fold is one solid piece of welded steel. No way that is coming off either. It should break at the wing folding mechanism.

Ok, but how would an F4U fly with 2/3rds of its wing gone?  If it would have the same effect as the entire wing being gone, then why bother modelling it visually?  Don't get me wrong, I get aggravated when I get both horizontal stabilizers blown off by a single Hispano round, but perhaps IRL a single Hispano round would do enough damage to render the elevators and/or stabilizers inoperable anyway, and just having them fall off is easier to model.  I'd like to see a DM a little more like IL-2s because it is cooler to have big gaping holes in the wing rather than just have your wingtip blown off time and time again- but I'm sure that would take a lot more processes power to do for a MMO game.

4. Fuel and Ammo managment- We should have a slider bar for the ammount of both fuel and ammo we take up. It is silly to take 2400 rounds of .50cal everytime I takeoff in an F4U. That is 700LBS of ammo. If I take off with 75% fuel and 50% ammo in an F4U-1D then I have reduced my 100% takeoff weight from 12,175LBS to 10,755LBS and still have as much .50cal ammo than a fully loaded P-51B.

I'd like to be able to adjust the ammo loads, I think that'd be a good feature.  Fuel loads I'd like to see changed to a gallons type system instead of a % system... 25% of a B-17s fuel load would probably fill up 5 Bf109s.  I'd also like to be able to fill up different tanks, like leave the wing tanks empty in the Ta-152 but fill up the FWD and AFT tanks.  I will say that beyond that the system works pretty well though.

[F4UDOA]

Urchin,

1. I think we agree on the tags. In fact I think everybody agrees on the tags with the exception of the people that don't want perk planes. If you want to actually be able to use them then limited icon data is the way to go.

2. Engine management- I agree, get to crazy and you will loose the mainstream. However a middle ground would be nice. In Janes WW2 Fighters (which I believe Pyro was part of) you would just get a message saying your engine was overheating and it was up to you to throttle back for a bit. I think that is enough for AH in some form or another.

3. Damage model- Your right again. The F4U can't fly with it's wing blown off regardless of where it occurs. However the visual is annoying. Also the result would not be as immediate as loosing an entire wing. You will have to bail but the effect of loosing 3/4 of your wing will be more "realistic" than what we currently have.
I think that asking for an IL-2 damage model with gaping holes and such is a bit much for the AH graphics engine to support. However it doesn't mean that the A/C has to split in two or your entire wing falls off when you have catostrophic damage.

4. Fuel and ammo managment- I would also like to be able to load tanks correctly. I just think in the short term a slider bar may be easier to implement. Some A/C have optional ammo loadouts and some don't. Seems pretty random to me since ammo load would be a pilot and ground crew decision. It's pretty silly if I want to take off with 50% fuel that I have to drag an extra 350LBS of ammo with me. And if I shoot it off in flight my score goes down. Not really a viable option IMHO.

[HFMudd]

I agree on all points with a couple details:

Engine Management: Might the outside air temperature be modeled?  Or would this simply require too many look up tables with would all have to be maintained by HTC to be manageable?  

Loadouts: Agree with the above that available fuel should be gallons rather than percentage.  With percentage as it is, a Yak is under a severe penalty with any reduction while a P-51 hardy notices.

[joeblogs]

Good suggestions.  

I made a post about an idea for some simple dashboard lights that might improve engine management even as the game is currently modeled.  That is on the board for AH 2

-Blogs

Originally posted by F4UDOA
This is not a squeak session.

I am an AH diehard. Just want some feedback on possible improvements that could be made without breaking the bank.

1. Aircraft Icons- The A/C ident icons need to change with range. Greater than 5K away should be generic fighter. From 1k to 5k should be fighter type ie. P-38, F6F. From Zero to 1K you get the specific fighter type IE F4U-4, Spit IX and such. It would change the perk plane delema as well.

2. Engine managment- We need it, Enough said. No way should we be buzzingaround at full MAP with no consequence. I'm not saying we should be using cowl flaps and intercooler controls for carb air temp I just think the future of flight simms is realism and we should be using some engine management for flights over say 10minutes continious. Janes WW2 Fighters had that much 5 years ago.

3. Damage model- I understand that the graphics engine limits what is visually possible but the one thing visually that I don't like is the entire tail section of a F4U.P-47 or F6F comming off for any reason other than a direct hit from ack or a hard landing. It just didn't happen that way. Also there is no way and F4U should loose it's wing at the fuselauge. The wing spar out to the wing fold is one solid piece of welded steel. No way that is coming off either. It should break at the wing folding mechanism.

4. Fuel and Ammo managment- We should have a slider bar for the ammount of both fuel and ammo we take up. It is silly to take 2400 rounds of .50cal everytime I takeoff in an F4U. That is 700LBS of ammo. If I take off with 75% fuel and 50% ammo in an F4U-1D then I have reduced my 100% takeoff weight from 12,175LBS to 11,283LBS and still have as much .50cal ammo than a fully loaded P-51B.

What does that mean to me?

That means my wing loading is now better (35.93) which is just as good as a fully loaded NIK2-J (35.7).    

5. Stall Speeds- I have an open discussion with HT on this so I'm going to wait and see.

Anyway that's my .02 cents if any cares or comments.

[fats]

--- F4UDOA: ---
I don't like is the entire tail section of a F4U.P-47 or F6F comming off for any reason other than a direct hit from ack or a hard landing.
--- end ---

Wish someone interviewing LW pilots would ask about the effect the MK 108 had on specific sections of fighters. More precisely section  of any target that had small volume, which excludes  the fuselage of a B-17 and like. Something like fighter rear fuselage or wing.

While the picture of the British firing test is probably the optimal result, I wouldn't be surprised if that tail would have come off clean had the target been flying.


// fats