Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: RASTER on February 07, 2010, 06:03:40 PM
-
Heard some chat on the radio about adding more ground operations and so forth. The WW2online experience although wonderful in many ways lacks fidelity. Certainly there are other flight sims with good flight physics but I fly AH mostly because of the Film Viewer which is the most marvelous achievement imaginable. This allows me to improve my pilotage. It allows me to check what the other did and what I did and why it was workable or otherwise.
If AH is considering changes, these should be aircraft related. There is simply too much game in the way online planes are piloted. Most gamers are not interested in learning about aircraft unless they have a special interest and honestly, flight simming is getting to the point where keyboards and limited knowledge make the simulation unplayable. So it is with this in mind, are we at the time, the point in the turn, the sign at the cross roads where the decision has to be made, is flight simming to be a hobby (sport) or a game. I would suggest that AH work towards making the aircraft more for the dedicated hobbist than for the gamers world.
I am not suggesting no ground operations or that they should be sparse or less intense but yes they could be much more intense but mostly AI controled.
-
I would suggest that AH work towards making the aircraft more for the dedicated hobbist than for the gamers world.
And how will HTC deal with the loss of the majority of it's customers? ;)
-
Without a doubt. A good example would be the air simulation tragedy of Targetware. Claims of high quality and high fidelity with poor game play based on hardcore historical scenarios. Nobody turned out even though the simulaton was free.
Looking to the future, what do you project we will have for hardware in the next decade. Some of this future hardware may be well suited to divide us between childrens games and adult pursuits which require a steep learning curve and patience. I am still interested in learning to pilot each fighter according to its real counterpart, in effect being a qualified pilot simply from simulation. Will that day come...who knows, but I would prefer seeing work done in that direction and not towards half way configured ground vehicles.
The reason I am here and not at WW2online is as I have said, to improve my flight. Add to that I started piloting online well over a decade ago and I am still learning technique so the point may reasonably be made that it takes a long time to learn and there always seems to be room to improve. Some folk see golf that way. Perhaps some day I will entertain a few of my business contemporaries while on a bombing mission or some such in preference to a golf game.
There are a lot of ways AH could improve without going going into the ground war.
-
I need more coffee...too early in the morning.
You're in the wrong place Raster. You want to be here --> http://www.x-plane.com/ (http://www.x-plane.com/)...that is a "flight simulator". Aces High is a "massive multiplayer online combat simulator game" with a WWII theme...and I bring up the same arguements as you when people wish for towed artillery, better infantry, submarines and such. What sets it apart from WWII online is the focus of aerial combat simulation where WWII online is focused on ground combat simulation...and the difference can be seen in the detail of the aircraft and flight models between the two games. Even though the physics of the aircraft is very close to realistic, it's still a game, and since no one is risking their lives for real, there will always be people of all ages "gaming the game"...can't stop them. Adding the element of "objectives" to the main arenas is one big thing that keeps people coming back...without the various objectives and added useable ground elements, all you would have is one big furball...and if that is what you want, there is the dueling arena...or IL2.
Just to satisfy you're desire for more realistic flight maybe you could wish for HTC to eliminate auto take off, auto pilot, auto climb, auto speed...then introduce random electrical/mechanical failures, weapons jams, advanced engine management, etc, etc, etc...but then HTC won't do that any more than they would eliminate the ground equipment.
-
I have to agree auto takeoff is a bit of a duck and grin. Who me? Hope nobody noticed. I started off using the fuel selector and trimming my own but soon got so lazy that I never do now. I have tended to look down on other pilots who when entering other sims have no idea whats happening with cooling flaps and prop adjustments. Some of these folk are aces where they were spawned in sims such as 'Fighter Ace' and so on but they really don't have it when faced with realistic aircraft controls. I think aircraft sounds could be improved and all the textures could be much better with very little losses and a lot of extra time. What I don't really want is another WW2online, that is unless its a WW1 online but once again thats not simulated air combat thats a war simulation. Both good I suppose but this is a wish list isnt it.
-
complex engine management is not fun, in Rise of flight and IL2 I turned most of the so called complex engine management off, adjusting prop pitch..and fuel mixture with engine over heats was nothing more than annoying for me.
I prefer more basic management controls but a realistic physics/FM, having to press J to unjam my guns make the game realistic? nope not in the slightest, does it make you more knowledgeable or a better pilot...not always, its what you find fun that counts.
-
we understand that the game should be realistic up to a point. we should not have to get a pilots license to play (j/K). most of us joined ah because it gave us the ability to simulate air combat, not simulate flying a real airplane in combat. there's gotta be a good balance between complexity and easiness of playing (please forgive me If i misspelt or misused any word :)). It took me about 30 days to actually get a "real" kill, before that I would fly the 109's only because they could survive a ram against most planes :rofl. I dont worry about which tank needs to have the least amount of gas, if you do that's cool too. all I worry is how much fuel to load and try not to get more than 49% of kills in a ho or vulching. If the game gets into trying to figure out the proper fuel/oxygen mixture, or manually fine tuning the radio so I can get rid of static to hear vox, then it will stop being fun to play for me. and lots of new players would get so frustrated that they would just quit after a few weeks. less new players not good for our furball :D.
semp
-
Don't misunderstand me, what is being said has been proven in the most part to be completely correct. However, I am a bit red faced when I must admit at one time when AH was new, it had to compete with Warbirds "easymode" pilots and for the most part many of them would not leave "easymode" and I was one of them. Even Warbirds had to maintain an "easymode" area for the folks who would not accept stalls and trim. Again, my face is red as I liked "easymode" but I discovered that all things are equal...in that no pilot was excused from the same group of problems.
There are a lot of pilots who simply want to get into the air and get a kill. The concept is good and you can build skills but eventually it gets repetitive. I have seen great sim pilots simply stop simming for this reason. Good example would be "Crutch" who was the author of a book on flight simming and simply hung up his stick a year or two ago without giving much of a reason. And what happened to Chuck Yeager...he used to come around here often?
No...most of you are right. There has to be a line drawn on how realistic you want it but for myself, I still look at pictures of aircraft and wonder what that thing does and what that switch is for and wonder if I could handle it. But its true...very true, the high levels of detail are only for a very small portion of the paying public. But this is a wish list ain't it.
-
To me this is partly why FSO has been so popular.
It encourages, nay at times demands fuel management.
Also forces you to at times throttle down to max cruise mode in order to be able to reach the target, and get home.
It is in many respects the best of both worlds. Offering much more challenge in some area's yet still using AH best features.
However, would it be as popular if it was setup as a 24/7 anything goes arena?
Competing head to Head with the LWO/LWB setup?
I suspect the answer is no, although it might be popular with some people. I suspect most of them would come from the AvA/Midwar player group, not the Late war Mains. But until it is setup and run for a couple of months it can't be proven.
The majority like being able to jump in a plane, not have to think to much, go find a fight. And put there focus on the fight. Not running a checklist just to get off the ground. And another to get your plane ready for combat.
There is a very fine line there, trying to move it very far in either direction would cost HTC dearly.
-
Since the "gold standard" for complex engine management is Il2, I will tell you something: It adds almost nothing to the experience. Only thing it really does is make going from plane to plane slightly more complex, having to learn the "sweet spot" settings for each. And it can be "gamed". If AHII added more complex EM, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest but it wouldn't add anything for me either.
OTOH, on some of the other things people call HTC out for being "unrealistic" on, they are entirely right.
WEP Automatic shutoff-Seems unrealistic though? But if you look at other sims, their solution for WEP limitation is automatic failure, which is even MORE unrealistic. Why? Because quite simply, there would be almost 0 chance of say a P-51D's engine failing if the pilot accidentally pulled 70'' for 6 minutes instead of 5. These engines could be and were abused *far* beyond book limitations without failure. "Realistic engine modeling" if such a thing were ever carried out, would effectively give every plane near unlimited WEP!!! HTC's choice to auto-limit power settings to book WEP limitations if anything actually forces AHII pilots to be somewhat *more* conservative of their power settings in actual combat than many pilots were, not less.
Cockpits-On the scale of an average sized monitor, an entirely realistic cockpit simply cannot do what it needs to do-let you read your instruments at a glance. Making the instruments larger and easier to read is 100% the right move to make. In AHII, we also have one instrument they typically did *not* have-the G-meter. This is a 110% brilliant and correct choice to make, because you don't have any *other* indication of G forces being pulled, sitting in your chair at home. It is ridiculous that *ALL* sims don't include G meters.
Trim-This is a biggie. HTC has on many occasions explained why CT exists-because trim is much more of a problem flying a simulator with small desk-top joysticks than flying an actual airplane! On top of that, you *can* use manual trim in AHII and it even has advantages in certain situations. Overall, while making you use manual trim (or not having trim in the roll and yaw axis available at all for airplanes that didn't have it in R/L, like in Il2) might on the surface *seem* technically realistic, in truth for flying on the com-pu-ter it would increase the difficulty of having a trimmed stable airplane far above and beyond what it is when actually flying.
-
All I really want is a returned focus on the "High" part of "Aces High."
IMO; we've gotten stuck in the mire of non-flight related material... when someone posts a thread in here asking to update troops, to add field artillery or requesting a submachinegun for their bailed out pile-it; we're off target.
-
The day may come when the only way left for AHII to expand is to become the All-Encompassing-WWII-Sim-To-Rule-Them-All.
That day is a long way off IMHO though.
All I really want is a returned focus on the "High" part of "Aces High."
IMO; we've gotten stuck in the mire of non-flight related material... when someone posts a thread in here asking to update troops, to add field artillery or requesting a submachinegun for their bailed out pile-it; we're off target.
-
All I really want is a returned focus on the "High" part of "Aces High."
IMO; we've gotten stuck in the mire of non-flight related material... when someone posts a thread in here asking to update troops, to add field artillery or requesting a submachinegun for their bailed out pile-it; we're off target.
:rofl +1
WEP Automatic shutoff-Seems unrealistic though? But if you look at other sims, their solution for WEP limitation is automatic failure, which is even MORE unrealistic. Why? Because quite simply, there would be almost 0 chance of say a P-51D's engine failing if the pilot accidentally pulled 70'' for 6 minutes instead of 5. These engines could be and were abused *far* beyond book limitations without failure. "Realistic engine modeling" if such a thing were ever carried out, would effectively give every plane near unlimited WEP!!! HTC's choice to auto-limit power settings to book WEP limitations if anything actually forces AHII pilots to be somewhat *more* conservative of their power settings in actual combat than many pilots were, not less.
I think your just a little bit off on your assumption BnZs...the WEP was akin to modern nitrous injection, limited supply and hard on the power plant. Those warnings in the manuals were there for a reason...there were enough WEP related engine failures to cause concern. Remember, when a combat plane hit the paddock, a ground crew starting working on it...if the pilot firewalled the throttle, the ground crew pulled the engine and checked everything that could be damaged by the heat and stress...when a pilot engaged WEP the results weren't anymore predictable than the engine in a top fuel dragster...it depended on how well the ground crew maintained his plane.
What HTC has in place is a "simulation of fail safe"...(personally I'd prefer random engine failure).
-
It has been put forward that realistic cockpits where the instruments and controls are accurately representitive of the real counterparts, that this type of cockpit would not fit on a average monitor sufficient to allow reasonable use. I suggest it can and have seen it in use on Targetware aircraft of many varieties which each support historically accurate cockpits and each with their own uinque instrumentation. However, that being said, it is also true that on some monitors the dials will be difficult to read accurately and occasionally some important instruments below the front view but in most cases it is entirely workable. I suggest, before making a counter claim that a person should examine the TW cockpits and make the decission from their own tests not from assumptions.
The use of Wep is a bit childish in AH form and there were more things to do that press a button. Most of all, as I said before, these WW2 engines can be made to produce 4000hp but they fall apart fast. It really depends if your fighting from your own field or from a field 1000miles away how you tune an engine and this should be represented in some way...by arbitrary engine failure if need be.
The ground war adds another dimension to flight simming but the problem here is the total loss of fidelity. With so much smoothing code, nothing is where it appears.
-
The use of Wep is a bit childish in AH form and there were more things to do that press a button. Most of all, as I said before, these WW2 engines can be made to produce 4000hp but they fall apart fast. It really depends if your fighting from your own field or from a field 1000miles away how you tune an engine and this should be represented in some way...by arbitrary engine failure if need be.
Raster, no offense man...but where the hell do you come up with this stuff? WEP was a throttle setting...in U.S. fighters it was a matter of pushing the throttle past the safety wire as far forward as it would go...the pilot did not have to perform other functions to enable it. And it wasn't massive amounts of power gain...depending on the method and the plane, 10 to 35(?) percent increase in horsepower...you could not get a 1500 hp engine to suddenly turn 4000 hp.
Your assertion on the instrumentation detail in Targetware is b.s. too...it's decent, as far as the cyber world view goes...if you ever get a chance to see the inside of a WWII fighter cockpit you will know.
-
@ gyrene81
What you say about Wep and throttle settings is absolutely correct but each plane has its own temperature/wear/stress parameters. This could be modeled and some say it should be modeled but as you know this already and probably better than I, what do you think it would be like to have your parameters used as opposed to the one button push (p). Would it put some planes out of popularity and bring others forward? Would that improve the game. Would it change the game in a way which you would not enjoy. IMO, I would like some variation on the one button but the complexity which you suggest and are fully knowledgable of, this may be more than I could want in my wish list.
What did you mean by "my assertion the instrument detail in Targetware is b.s." It was my attempt to state that TW cockpits were damn good.
-
What did you mean by "my assertion the instrument detail in Targetware is b.s." It was my attempt to state that TW cockpits were damn good.
What I mean is the Targeware instrument panel detail is no better nor worse than AH...there are some differences in what is shown but the graphical detail is pretty much the same...I've seen it...impressive but only noteworthy of comparison to IL2 and not much better than AH...if your computer can handle it, run 1024 textures with the hi res texture pack in AH...noticeable difference.
One thing we have to remember when we immerse ourselves into our cyber war...perspective...real life vs cyber world...we're not going to be able to see the level of detail with the cyber eyeballs of our pile-it on a 22 inch monitor that our real life eyeballs can see in our real world. In the real world looking at something 18 inches from your face is different than looking at something 6 feet away, but our eyes can adjust and focus to bring that detail information to our brains...in the cyber world of these flight sims, our pile-it is slightly myopic at best.
And yes I do agree with that engaging WEP should be more than just pushing a button or key on the keyboard...but, unless you had a joystick with a throttle that had an "extra notch" I don't see any other practical way without making it too difficult for the novice.
-
Very very few planes in WW2 used a nitrous system (GM-1 for the germans is the only one I can think of, suitable only above 30,000 feet or so).
All other additives are cooling agents to lower temperatures (yes, LOWER them!) so more compression could be made without premature detonation. On top of that, MANY "war emergency power" settings require no additives, they simply increase the RPM and MAP beyond a certain limited point.
So, no... Simply running an engine for 5 minutes on a WEP setting will never, in any case, destroy the engine like most other sims pretend. It's as artificial as any other decision in a computer game.
As for your cockpits argument: Nobody in TW uses the instruments, they all use debug console for every bit of info. I doubt they ever look at the cockpit except for the gunsight. In IL2 nobody uses the cockpit, either! They either turn it off to get the nice handy ctrl-f1 view, or they use the speed bar for heading, alt, and speed. Why? Because they have stupidly designed layouts that don't give you any of the info you need. [EDIT: As mentioned in real life it may work, but on a computer screen it's retarded] Hell, IL2 even brags that their new BOB game is going to have "realistic" compasses that swing back and forth 90 degrees never telling you what course you're really on.
Riiiiiight.
Because in WW2 they really flew north when they were trying to go east every time, right?
-
Very very few planes in WW2 used a nitrous system (GM-1 for the germans is the only one I can think of, suitable only above 30,000 feet or so).
TA152H according to documentation only because it really enhanced high alt performance...also had the methanol injection system.
So, no... Simply running an engine for 5 minutes on a WEP setting will never, in any case, destroy the engine like most other sims pretend. It's as artificial as any other decision in a computer game.
You're wrong:
P-51 Pilot Manual Wep Instructions (http://books.google.com/books?id=SfwqCTY9I6MC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=war+emergency+power&source=bl&ots=hNKG_xRNJ-&sig=WuR0Uj437xcrev9xjWuMsQSMPtU&hl=en&ei=nNBxS9qjJcGAnQfE1-mJCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=war%20emergency%20power&f=true)
-
Sorry Gyrene, do some more reading on the subject. It could risk damaging it, but not in a "oh no, it stopped running!" kind of way, more like "dammit, the ground crew has to take this apart and look for scratches when I get home, they may have to overhaul it" -- it was a maintenance issue more than "you'll go boom" issue.
EDIT: the 152H-1 had a GM-1 system, as I mentioned, but AH doesn't currently have the power boost for GM-1 added (so it would seem) above a certain alt.
-
Sorry Gyrene, do some more reading on the subject. It could risk damaging it, but not in a "oh no, it stopped running!" kind of way, more like "dammit, the ground crew has to take this apart and look for scratches when I get home, they may have to overhaul it" -- it was a maintenance issue more than "you'll go boom" issue.
Well, the few items I have been able to find regarding engine failures associated with engaging WEP or turbo boost systems indicated there were enough engine failures in flight to cause concern...nothing like the reaction of a blower igniting off a dragster...but enough that the engine failed in flight and forced the pilot to either bail or emergency land.
Everything I've found shows that SOP for ground crews was that if that WEP system was engaged, the engine was overhauled before that plane left the ground again, except in emergency situations...by all accounts, the Germans weren't so picky about engine maintenance as the U.S. was...
-
Funny, since most accounts I've heard about include running spitfires' engines for half an hour at WEP settings with no detrimental factors, the fact that one Wright engine (off the F4u or P-47? I can't recall) was run for hours well past "max" settings with no faults.
In general, there were a lot of things that could fail in an engine.. But if it was working, using WEP wouldn't make it fail any faster.
-
Funny, since most accounts I've heard about include running spitfires' engines for half an hour at WEP settings with no detrimental factors, the fact that one Wright engine (off the F4u or P-47? I can't recall) was run for hours well past "max" settings with no faults.
In general, there were a lot of things that could fail in an engine.. But if it was working, using WEP wouldn't make it fail any faster.
Heresy! It was a Pratt And Whitney!!! :old:
-
In general, there were a lot of things that could fail in an engine.. But if it was working, using WEP wouldn't make it fail any faster.
Back in the 40's the strengths of materials were not as well understood as they are today. Many factors we know now and the intense calculations that can be made using computers were not in the hands of the engineers in the 40s. That an engine is working has nothing to do with when it will fail. They changed a lot of spark plugs and you know what destroys spark plugs don't you. Boost has often been a factor for increasing power. Boost causes a lot of heat and increases the compression pressure. This heat can cause the engine to detonate before it reaches the top of the cylinder, the result can often be melting of the piston tops which cause a hell of a lot of smoke and lost power in that cylinder. The heat also melts the valves and then they don't close well. This also is lost power. Boost also heats up the plugs and burns off the electrodes. So if you use too much boost you can get a lot more power but the heat will destroy the combustion chamber. The way around this is higher octane fuels. This prevents the engine from dieseling which is the same combustion by heat induced pressure not spark. This high octane does not relieve the main crank bearings from being overstressed. The increased force smashes the hell out of the bearings and very soon the thing starts to bang like a hammer on your firewall. After a few minutes of this, if you don't throttle back, then a rod goes through the crankcase along with other parts of the combustion chamber and this can burst a fuel line, crack a manifold and then you have a fire. So no matter what you do, if you put too much stress on the crank you could get a rod out the block and that would be mildly explosive. If the engine is running as you say, you have no way of knowing if the bearings are starting to go, if carbon has built up somewhere and plugged an oil way. When you bang that engine up to full emergency power, that's when you find out that carbon has plugged an oilway and although it was fine at low pressure it will soon fail. Your suggestion that using wep will not make an engine fail anysooner sort of angers me.
-
Very very few planes in WW2 used a nitrous system (GM-1 for the germans is the only one I can think of, suitable only above 30,000 feet or so).
Mosquito NF.Mk XIX used nitrous oxide to get decent altitude performance out of Merlin 25s.
-
Very interesting Karnak!
That makes 2 systems on rare variants heheh
BnZ, my bad! lol! You caught me. Couldn't remember which engine.
Raster... General use will make an engine fail eventually without maintenance. No matter how cool it is. Using the wrong oil can kill it. Cooling it off too fast can crack it.. There's billions of things that can kill an engine. If it's running well enough to have excellent power at full throttle, it won't fail, burst, explode, or anything after 5 minutes of WEP additives or WEP throttle/RPM settings. I'm familiar with many of the points you outlined, and you're right.
Hell you're taking millions of chances with the nerves in your body just taking one step heel-to-toe... You run the risk of shattering your bones or killing yourself so many different ways in just a single step... But more often than not you take the step and nothing "fails." Assuming you can take the steps fine, you can walk fine. You're not going to explode and have your knees shatter if you jog for a couple minutes. You might get tired more, and need an aspirin tomorrow (read: overhaul after the sortie), but you can do it. Just an analogy.
-
This thread, when I started it, was an attempt to illustrate that on-line air combat sims can go a long way to clear up many of the misconceptions that otherwise good flight sim pilots have about the representative aircraft they are using. As I said, rather than expand into ground based combat activities which could be controlled by the airbattle but simulated by AI, I would prefer to see more effort placed on individual specific flight controls such as the WEP.
There is nothing more hilarious to real pilots, and certainly embarrassing to everyone, than to hear one of the worlds top combat simulation pilots defend his lack of knowledge concerning the representative aircraft he pilots on-line. Its a shadow of ignorance the reflects on the entire flight sim community. My joystick, (which is currently in for repairs ) is older than some of the people I have piloted with on line. Air combat simulation is something I do and I expect I will continue to do it as I grow older. There is little chance that I will ever own one of these vintage aircraft although I have had the stick and been along for aerobatic maneuvers, I will never get to shoot people. Never in real life. But I can do it in simulation and that's just fine with me. What I don't like is seeing the air combat simulation crown going to some hacker or some child who knows nothing about the aircraft he pilots simply because air combat simulation is a game and not a simulation. There are so many aircombat simulation pilots who have disappointing misconceptions about these planes and in this instance, with reliability, regardless of how debilitating it was on performance, reliability was essential to allied aircraft design. Try crossing the Atlantic ocean in a 109. But this as well as other aspects of aircombat go unrepresented or its the agonizing alternative, misrepresented. Thats not my beef only my wish. As time passes, for those of us who have been simming for well over a decade...(seems to be more than I remember) there is a need for more and that more for some is not to see the fidelity of every flight simulation trashed to include ground operations. Certainly I enjoy ground operations at times but there has to be somewhere to go for good aircombat. It can be AH or somewhere else.
Note to Karnak, what speed would that give the mossie, 330mph? :rolleyes:
-
Just on the off chance someone thinks only allied aircraft were reliable, consider Jiro's A6M with long range tanks. The motors although little more that 600hp made the aircraft more than a match and its reliability allowed it to attack locations thought impossible.
Krusty, do you mean "Shock Cooling" when you power down and take a steep dive to cool the engine rapidly...is there some reason not to do that, is that what you mean? Lucky you, nothing fails until you land and turn off the engine.
-
Back in the 40's the strengths of materials were not as well understood as they are today. Many factors we know now and the intense calculations that can be made using computers were not in the hands of the engineers in the 40s. That an engine is working has nothing to do with when it will fail. They changed a lot of spark plugs and you know what destroys spark plugs don't you. Boost has often been a factor for increasing power. Boost causes a lot of heat and increases the compression pressure. This heat can cause the engine to detonate before it reaches the top of the cylinder, the result can often be melting of the piston tops which cause a hell of a lot of smoke and lost power in that cylinder. The heat also melts the valves and then they don't close well. This also is lost power. Boost also heats up the plugs and burns off the electrodes. So if you use too much boost you can get a lot more power but the heat will destroy the combustion chamber. The way around this is higher octane fuels. This prevents the engine from dieseling which is the same combustion by heat induced pressure not spark. This high octane does not relieve the main crank bearings from being overstressed. The increased force smashes the hell out of the bearings and very soon the thing starts to bang like a hammer on your firewall. After a few minutes of this, if you don't throttle back, then a rod goes through the crankcase along with other parts of the combustion chamber and this can burst a fuel line, crack a manifold and then you have a fire. So no matter what you do, if you put too much stress on the crank you could get a rod out the block and that would be mildly explosive. If the engine is running as you say, you have no way of knowing if the bearings are starting to go, if carbon has built up somewhere and plugged an oil way. When you bang that engine up to full emergency power, that's when you find out that carbon has plugged an oilway and although it was fine at low pressure it will soon fail. Your suggestion that using wep will not make an engine fail anysooner sort of angers me.
I think you are wrong,
For instance the boost pressure of the Typhoon at full throttle is +7 Psi ( +7 of atmospheric pressure which is 14.7 = 21.7 Psi and at WEP = +9 of 14.7 = 22.7psi) ( Thats if I have read correctly from wiki about how the British gauges worked, if not, it is just +7psi and +9psi ) That is a minimal increase in boost pressure to worry about Det. As longs as the charge air temps are able to cope, of which I would have assumed they are when the engine was designed. Melting of pistons is not normaly done by det, det will normally crack the ringlands first...Melting of the pistons would more likely be by running lean...The spark plugs will be fine as longs as they have been designed to be used with a specific heat range and changed often...
Higher octane fuels do not prevent the engine from dieseling, Higher octane fuels help reduce det/knock etc
With the high maintenance intervals the aircraft's received and overhauling during the routine maintenance any worn parts would have been replaced, IE inspection of the valves and valves seats, valve springs etc etc... I do not belive running an engine hard for a few hours will cause the dramatic/common engine failures modelled that are modelled in other sims or that some people make out....Thats my views from things I have read, and my Engineering background.
I agree that running an engine hard for long periods will increase wear, but not at the fast rate your expressing. I also believe it should not anger you when someone has a different opinion to yourself.
-
Higher octane fuels do not prevent the engine from dieseling, Higher octane fuels help reduce det/knock etc
You're not thinking science are you captain bushpilot. Both are in effect the same. BTW heat can show up in many ways and you are right on one point Mr. Engineer running lean, that is more air than fuel will cause the pistons to melt.
I also believe it should not anger you when someone has a different opinion to yourself
I could agree with you, but I won't. That's why God allows bad things happen. So some folk will take their responsibilities seriously. This response arouse any passionate negative emotion in you.
-
You're not thinking science are you captain bushpilot. Both are in effect the same.
that is more air than fuel will cause the pistons to melt.
you are wrong, Dieseling is " Dieseling or engine run-on is a condition which can occur in spark plug, gasoline powered internal combustion engines whereby the engine keeps running for a short period after being turned off, due to fuel igniting without a spark."
Running more air and fuel in the correct ratio will not make the pistons melt...
Melting pistons is normally caused by running lean, ...Please do not try to insult me while I discuss the views in your posts, not once have I tried to insult you.
-
What I don't like is seeing the air combat simulation crown going to some hacker or some child who knows nothing about the aircraft he pilots simply because air combat simulation is a game and not a simulation.
Ahh...finally we have the true motivation behind your "wish". You're tired of getting your arse kicked in and want to make the game harder in the mistaken belief that it will result in you getting shot down less by those you consider to be lesser than you.
ack-ack
-
I agree that running an engine hard for long periods will increase wear, but not at the fast rate your expressing.
Actually, it does...just looking at the P-51D using WEP called for a complete overhaul/replacement after only 50 hours of WEP...SOP was to dismantle the engine and replace suspicious parts after every use of WEP. There are records of Marine F4U ground crews performing engine overhauls/replacements after every combat mission.
One thing you guys have to remember is an air battle lasted anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes during which time the pilots are pushing their aircraft as hard as they can...there were no onboard computers telling the ground crews how long the engine ran, how hot it got, how long the WEP was engaged, etc...it was mostly guess work and S.O.P. There wasn't any "space age" alloy metals used in the engines at that time...especially in Russia or Germany. You also have to remember that the reason there isn't more information on in flight engine failures, is because few pilots survived the ordeal...and those that did dismissed it or got killed in another battle. What is well documented is the standards ops for ground crews to do certain things at regular intervals in order to minimize catastrophic failures...even with modern internal combustion racing engines if redline is 10k rpms and you push it to 15k rpms, if your mechanic did a good job on it the chances of failure are minimal, but as soon as you park that car they will pull the engine and overhaul it.
Raster, I understand what you're saying but...I question where you think the line should be drawn between a flight simulation and a video game...I for one do not want to invest several thousand dollars for a simulated cockpit in my house...nor am I willing to spend more than $20 a month for a combat flight simulator...do you want an actual flight simulator or is a combat flight simulation game good enough? There are major differences not only in technology but in cost...as much as I would love to experience it, I'm not willing to foot the cost...and you probably wouldn't find several hundred other people willing to be your targets in a high cost air combat flight simulator the way you do in this combat flight simulation game.
-
Ahh...finally we have the true motivation behind your "wish". You're tired of getting your arse kicked in and want to make the game harder in the mistaken belief that it will result in you getting shot down less by those you consider to be lesser than you.
ack-ack
:rofl good one Ack...you devil. :devil
-
This thread, when I started it, was an attempt to illustrate that on-line air combat sims can go a long way to clear up many of the misconceptions that otherwise good flight sim pilots have about the representative aircraft they are using. As I said, rather than expand into ground based combat activities which could be controlled by the airbattle but simulated by AI, I would prefer to see more effort placed on individual specific flight controls such as the WEP.
There is nothing more hilarious to real pilots,
You are very correct, I find it very hilarious to listen to your idea's on what constitutes a sim.
Your ideas would make AH more of a pain in the but to fly, but they would make it less realistic.
The only people who normally request items like you do, are not pilots.
Also AH is a simulation that is used to play a game. It really is a nonsensical argument is it more or less a simulation.
2nd to have even a close to realistic engine damage modeling huge random factors would have to be randomized. Randomizes that simply spoil your flight are not fun. And putting anything into AH that simply is a pain with out adding anything fun to the game is never a good idea.
You make a big deal out of things that are really minor, but you then ignore things that are very standard such as the 10 - 30 minutes you should have to wait before each flight do to preflight and engine warm up times. Simply making you sit for 10 mins after your engine start would actually be more realistic then what you suggest.
PS I believe you are mixing terms.
Detonation: Detonation is the spontaneous combustion of the end-gas (remaining fuel/air mixture) in the chamber. It always occurs after normal combustion is initiated by the spark plug. The initial combustion at the spark plug is followed by a normal combustion burn. For some reason, likely heat and pressure, the end gas in the chamber spontaneously combusts. The key point here is that detonation occurs after you have initiated the normal combustion with the spark plug.
Pre-ignition: Pre-ignition is defined as the ignition of the mixture prior to the spark plug firing. Anytime something causes the mixture in the chamber to ignite prior to the spark plug event it is classified as pre-ignition. The two are completely different and abnormal phenomenon.
-
Randomly-generated, adverse events that simply spoil your flight are not fun.
Quote for posterity.
(and corrected for grammar) ;)
-
Detonation: Detonation is the spontaneous combustion of the end-gas (remaining fuel/air mixture) in the chamber.
Thats the correct term hitech but that only confirms what I wrote about octane controling this attribute as it does Run on, knocking, dieseling and whatever your mechanic will call it. Octane prevents engine damage at high boosts yes.
Your ideas would make AH more of a pain in the but to fly,
Yes it certainly would. But so did the abandonment of easy mode. I liked easy mode. You going to call me a dweeb if I ask you to return to easy mode. Where are the pilots now who want to return to easy mode and auto guns in the bombers. At some point the complexity of flight simming will approximate real flight and you simply can't expect a young person to pick this up instantly. Easy mode for beginners is a good thing, the parameters to keep seasoned flight simmers happy would be an ordeal for new pilots. Totally unworkable and the very reason to keep them apart. The reason my wish list includes increased control over the simulated aircraft is because of selfishness not reality. A wish list is exactly that, a wish, it is not a demand. I can absolutely envision how this could be done but that does not make my vision profitalbe or workable. It is simply a desire for a little more in that direction.
Randomizes that simply spoil your flight are not fun
It does not have to be radomized. Failure can be calculated. One way it could be done is heat. Thermodynamics equations are as accessable as are the definitions of preignition. There is a lot of complexity and even the smallest change from the press p button would be a lot of work to be corrected for each aircraft in a realist way. Easier to do ground operations and a lot less friction from the experts with the engineering background who dont understand why their 109 is busted.
the true motivation behind your "wish". You're tired of getting your arse kicked
You can bet from the start of this tour I have had my butt kicked in the Mosquito that I have piloted most of the time. Unlike pilots like yourself who sit in behind their uber sticks. I take my beatings in a lesser aircraft and have repeatedly taking down P51's, 190's and spitfires 1 on 1 and brought home the kills. My score is the score almost totally from flying the mosquito in turn fights using a joystick whcih is almost 15 years old. So take a look ACE.
-
You can bet from the start of this tour I have had my butt kicked in the Mosquito that I have piloted most of the time. Unlike pilots like yourself who sit in behind their uber sticks. I take my beatings in a lesser aircraft and have repeatedly taking down P51's, 190's and spitfires 1 on 1 and brought home the kills. My score is the score almost totally from flying the mosquito in turn fights using a joystick whcih is almost 15 years old. So take a look ACE.
The 10 year old CH stick I use is hardly 'uber' though I will admit that I am rather 'uber' in the P-38J but that just comes from the experience I have in flying the P-38 almost exclusively for the 17 years or so I've been playing online flight sims.
As I mentioned in my previous post, your motivation is quite clear. You want to make this game harder in the false belief that it somehow will make it easier for you to get kills and stop being everyone's easy kill.
ack-ack
-
It does not have to be radomized. Failure can be calculated. One way it could be done is heat. Thermodynamics equations are as accessable as are the definitions of preignition. There is a lot of complexity and even the smallest change from the press p button would be a lot of work to be corrected for each aircraft in a realist way. Easier to do ground operations and a lot less friction from the experts with the engineering background who dont understand why their 109 is busted.
You have just proven my point, you really believe you can in any way realistically predict failures. This is so bloody unrealistic it is almost laughable.
Also I never removed easy mode. And a version of it is in AH so why would I call you a dweeb when it has never left.
Also Did you used to have a different handle?
HiTech
-
Stiglr Jr?
-
Stiglr Jr?
:aok :rofl
Edit: I have it from good authority that Failure Consultants (in the sense of engineering failure) make $100+ an hour.
If it were so simple to model.... well I leave it up to you to fill in the blanks.
-
Ahem...I know this is going to open me up to a barrage but, failure can be predicted...to a point...especially in electrical and or mechanical systems. You would have to have some known factors and it can be done using a statistical analysis program...and it's done all the time in many industries...translating that to a programmable equation to be used in a software application could be more complicated...making it a random failure within a cyber environment is slightly more complex.
The only reason I know it is because I know a few of PhD's in statics, physics and engineering where I work... :D They're doing some grant research and predictable failure is one of the issues they are addressing. I watched a demo a while back and it was pretty interesting...actually predicted an electro-mechanical failure based on heat.
-
Gyrene, you effectively made my point. It's PhD/post-doc research. Doing something like this with a stat package is one thing, doing it in real time for a flight sim is another. Also the cost/benefit of it is pretty bad.
-
Well Boomerlu...there have been a couple of games that used math algorithms to generate random gun jams...I'm sure random engine failure would be a bit more difficult but doable...but you're right, the cost/benefit would be bad.
-
Well, how many moving parts does a gun have? I'm not an expert, but my guess is in the range of 10-100 moving parts.
An engine on the other hand, I'd wager would have more in the range of 1,000-10,000 moving parts if not more.
And since it's not just the failure of the parts that matters, it's the inter-relationships between parts, the complexity of such a model would grow very quickly, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of quadratic complexity or more (that's just a guess).
In other words, multiply the moving parts by 100 (e.g. going from 10 in a gun to 1,000 in an engine) and you are multiplying the required processing time by approximately (100^2 = 10,000) if we are going to use a physically accurate model. Simplify and you run into the realism/game performance dilemma. Whereas it's probably easy enough to simplify an already (relatively) simple mechanism like a gun jam, it seems much harder to do so for a complex system like an engine.
Not sure of the truth of my analysis, but that's my intuitive take on it.
-
Well Ack Ack a CH stick is a nice stick but I have never used one because I like the digitals. My stick however is at the end I think. Been trying to fix it and as such been flying my mouth like the rest of you guys. Its currently working but...when they went UBS I could not find a converter for my peddles so they are in bits and as luck would have it, when I did find a UBS converter I needed a part I now don't have so I am using a twist rudder and that is the part that is currently not working in my stick. But, unlike you Ack Ack, I don't like getting shot down repeatedly. So ask why I pilot the Mosquito and not the P38. You seem to think that I fit into your mold and maybe I sometimes do but I don't pilot hot planes when I am playing against seal pups. I am piloting the Mosquito and think I will stick with it most of the time. I don't mind getting shot down all the time but I do get a shot in often. Unlike you I don't mind it that much as I still can keep my score fairly high without having to pilot the P38 to pad my score the way you claim to need to. The point here is everyone like you Ack Ack talks a big fare fight but you never fly the lesser planes according to your last confession if that is to be believed. You probably don't pilot the lesser planes for two reasons. Perhaps one is you're not that good and the other is, that you see yourself in others, you don't like being shot down.
so Did you used to have a different handle?
You find a lot of things laughable Hitech. You and Santa got anything in common. Real pilots. Are you a real pilot, if you were you would correct the turn ball. No Hitech my handle has always been Raster. I have used Raster50 and those type of variations because others have been using my handle. Why do you ask? BTW this is my wish list not yours.
-
Bronk...do you know Stiglr!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT...Joystick working again...end of communication. Thanks for the poke in the ribs. Maybe post later. TW restarting new in Feb and although I don't get along with Stiglr, I do want to see what they got.
-
Well Ack Ack a CH stick is a nice stick but I have never used one because I like the digitals. My stick however is at the end I think. Been trying to fix it and as such been flying my mouth like the rest of you guys. Its currently working but...when they went UBS I could not find a converter for my peddles so they are in bits and as luck would have it, when I did find a UBS converter I needed a part I now don't have so I am using a twist rudder and that is the part that is currently not working in my stick. But, unlike you Ack Ack, I don't like getting shot down repeatedly. So ask why I pilot the Mosquito and not the P38. You seem to think that I fit into your mold and maybe I sometimes do but I don't pilot hot planes when I am playing against seal pups. I am piloting the Mosquito and think I will stick with it most of the time. I don't mind getting shot down all the time but I do get a shot in often. Unlike you I don't mind it that much as I still can keep my score fairly high without having to pilot the P38 to pad my score the way you claim to need to. The point here is everyone like you Ack Ack talks a big fare fight but you never fly the lesser planes according to your last confession if that is to be believed. You probably don't pilot the lesser planes for two reasons. Perhaps one is you're not that good and the other is, that you see yourself in others, you don't like being shot down.
You find a lot of things laughable Hitech. You and Santa got anything in common. Real pilots. Are you a real pilot, if you were you would correct the turn ball. No Hitech my handle has always been Raster. I have used Raster50 and those type of variations because others have been using my handle. Why do you ask? BTW this is my wish list not yours.
I don't think anyone that plays this game likes to be shot down repeatedly. I know I don't, that's why in the MW arena (where I spend most of my time) I only have 13 deaths from being shot down in the 60+ sorties I've flown and less in the LW arena (though I've only spent around 2 hours in that arena this tour). However, I do like shooting planes down and I'd rather know that I shot the other guy down because I was able to out fly and out fight them due to my skill and experience instead of trying change the game to give me an advantage. That's the difference between me and you I guess.
P-38J a hot plane? I guess with me in the controls or the other dedicated Lightning pilots it is, but generally it's a mediocre plane when flown by the average player. If you look at my score, it will be clearly evident that I don't play for score/rank and whatever rank/score I get is just a natural by product of my flying, nothing more or less. The reason why I have a pretty good record flying the Lightning is that I took the time over the years to learn ACM and whatever else I could read to improve without having to resort to using gamey tactics or trying to change the game so I can get some sort of advantage. Can you say the same? You can't since you're the one that started this thread wishing to change the game to give you an advantage.
Also, where do I claim in any thread that I have to fly the P-38J to pad my score? Please show the post. If I wanted to pad my score I'd fly a late war bird or a Spitfire.
I've stated the reasons why I fly the P-38 many times over the years. There is no ulterior motive, I fly the P-38 exclusively in the main arenas for the simple reason it's the only WW2 plane that has captivated me since childhood like no other plane has and I have no desire to fly any other plane. This doesn't mean anything other than I enjoy the Lightning and the challenge is poses in flying it successfully. I've also stated the reason why I only fly the J varient is due to historical reasons based on the squadron I am in. The 479th FG in WW2 flew the P-38J and as a member of the virtual 479th squadron, I keep that tradition. In fact, when I joined the Riddle's Raiders back in AW, it was because it was a P-38 squadron and I knew by accepting the invite to join, I'd have an opportunity to learn from some of the best P-38 sticks in that game.
You are also kidding yourself that if you think just because I fly one fighter in the main arenas that means I can't fly any other plane. In case someone hasn't told you yet, ACM isn't plane dependent.
I'll state it again since you just admitted it once again in your post. You want to change the game to give you some sort of advantage because you don't like getting your arse handed to you on a regular basis. So, I make this suggestion to you. If you don't like to get shot down, learn some ACM by either reading some books or seek the services of our excellent trainers that can help you improve. Maybe then you'll find more enjoyment of winning due to your skill rather than winning because you had to change the game to give you an advantage to make up for your lack of skill.
Enjoy.
ack-ack
-
I think what happens is folks want to equate 'realism' to 'immersion. There is nothing a game designer can program into the game that will give you that feeling if you don't have it in you already.
I keep flying cartoon airplanes to try and find that feeling of 'being there' that happens now and again when my 40+ years of being a WW2 junkie mix with a moment in the game and it feels as real as it's going to get in a cartoon flight sim. No extra button, or procedure I have to follow would make it happen.
What makes it happen are the people you fly with, mixed with your own interest. I can name those moments going back 15 years to the Airwarrior days. Most times it happened in scenarios, but it can happen in the MA. Maybe it's B25C strafers, or P39Ds with Soulyss. Going back to Airwarrior Delirium and I seemed to find those moments during scenarios where flying wing, we did something that sucked me into the cockpit and it felt like I was there. Flying with like minded folks in the DGS scenario was the ultimate immersion for me as what the game offered in eye candy, mixed with lots of history junkies in the cockpits around me made it seem 'real'. The efforts of the guys who made the correct plane skins for our birds, the scenario designer and CMs, the terrain guys, the guys in charge, the GLs , FLs etc all took what AH offered up and made it as good as it could have been.
You can't force folks to do that however. You will always have gamers who want to 'win' and count their points. The history/immersion guys will find their place too as will the dogfighters, the bomber pilots and the war winners.
None of these planes are real and we aren't ever going to go back and fight WW2 in the sky for real. Odds are most of us would fail our flight physicals if we did :)
Bottom line is I tend to feel like the guys looking for more 'realisim' are missing the point. Nothing that HTC could do would help them find what they are missing.
-
Targetware shut down because it's been left to rot so long the servers no longer work. We get these folks looking for other avenues.
Gyrene: Re-read your last post re: wep... After "50 hours" -- yes, so running WEP after 5 minutes would kill your engine if "50 hours" was the tear-down time... Think about it.
Failures:
What is a failure? It's an abnormality. You cannot predict what will fail and what will not. Usually the result of faulty construction, assembly, bad parts, or human error. A machine properly assembled and properly lubed/balanced/loaded/whatever won't fail. It's the human errors that cause it to fail. Take a look at TW... They "randomly" make the guns jam (all guns, every type) after 5 seconds of steady fire, no matter HOW reliable the weapons were in real life. Even the guns with cocking handles in the cockpits, or jam-clearing mechanisms in the war, all jam instantly in TW. That's bullcrap pure and simple.
So what's failure? It's an abnomality brought on by human error. Does it happen? Sure. Can you predict what human is going to make what error? Hell no. The only way you can pretend to approximate a "failure rate" is to introduce a random dice-throw with a % variable "10% of engines will explode on startup" (or whatever criteria you have).
That's DnD shyte. You want that, go play and RPG with random hits and number generators. Frankly there's a lot I'd like to see (such as G-loading affecting guns' jamming), but "random generated crap" isn't on the list at all. Tying it all back in to the top of my thread, engines exploding/failing after 5 mins of WEP also fall under "random" -- they just up it to 100% chance when in reality it was more like 0%.
-
Ahem...I know this is going to open me up to a barrage but, failure can be predicted...to a point...especially in electrical and or mechanical systems. You would have to have some known factors and it can be done using a statistical analysis program...and it's done all the time in many industries...translating that to a programmable equation to be used in a software application could be more complicated...making it a random failure within a cyber environment is slightly more complex.
The only reason I know it is because I know a few of PhD's in statics, physics and engineering where I work... :D They're doing some grant research and predictable failure is one of the issues they are addressing. I watched a demo a while back and it was pretty interesting...actually predicted an electro-mechanical failure based on heat.
Gyrene: I assume they produce a % chance of failure over time curve? I.E. I assume they can not 100% predict the exact failure time If so it would still come down to a randomize based on the calculated curve.
HiTech
-
You find a lot of things laughable Hitech. You and Santa got anything in common. Real pilots. Are you a real pilot, if you were you would correct the turn ball. No Hitech my handle has always been Raster. I have used Raster50 and those type of variations because others have been using my handle. Why do you ask? BTW this is my wish list not yours.
Yes I am a pilot,only have around 1k hours, in fact you can fly my personal plane in the game. Tail number N346AK. And there is nothing wrong with the ball programing, but it is possible a plane has the gauge set up incorrectly, which one are you referring to.
HiTech
-
Yes I am a pilot,only have around 1k hours, in fact you can fly my personal plane in the game. Tail number N346AK. And there is nothing wrong with the ball programing, but it is possible a plane has the gauge set up incorrectly, which one are you referring to.
HiTech
Zing!
-
Gyrene: I assume they produce a % chance of failure over time curve? I.E. I assume they can not 100% predict the exact failure time If so it would still come down to a randomize based on the calculated curve.
HiTech
Yes sir, absolutely. The predictions are based on known variables for every component based on existing data, then calculated under controlled circumstances...the only thing they can say at that point is based on x and y, it can be said that if xyz conditions exist for x amount of time...this will happen x% of the time.
Sorry but anyone who doesn't think failure can be predicted with reasonable certainty using known variables needs to go back to school.
-
I could not imagine nothing more frustrating than flying along to the furball/buff hunting/cap and all of a sudden loss of oil pressure and engine failure after 10 minutes climbing to your desired alt.
That would be the most annoying thing that HTC could ever implement " Random Engine Failures" having an acurate physics model/flight model is far more enjoyable than complex engine management.
-
Yes sir, absolutely. The predictions are based on known variables for every component based on previous research, then calculated under controlled circumstances...the only thing they can say at that point is based on x and y, it can be said that if xyz conditions exist for x amount of time...this will happen x% of the time.
Sorry but anyone who doesn't think failure can be predicted with reasonable certainty using known variables needs to go back to school.
That's great. Can you provide the research for the Pratt & Whitney, Allison, Wright, Rolls Royce, Bristol, Napier, Daimler Benz, Junkers, Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, Nakajima, Fiat, Kilmov, Mikulin, Shvetsov, Gnome-Rhone and Hispano-Suiza engines that are, or will be, in the game?
-
I could not imagine nothing more frustrating than flying along to the furball/buff hunting/cap and all of a sudden loss of oil pressure and engine failure after 10 minutes climbing to your desired alt.
I can think of a lot of things that I see in the arenas with the existing flight models frequently that are more frustrating...wouldn't bother me much but yes I can see where the gamers and "war winners" could get a bit pissy about such random things happening.
That's great. Can you provide the research for the Pratt & Whitney, Allison, Wright, Rolls Royce, Bristol, Napier, Daimler Benz, Junkers, Kawasaki, Mitsubishi, Nakajima, Fiat, Kilmov, Mikulin, Shvetsov, Gnome-Rhone and Hispano-Suiza engines that are, or will be, in the game?
Sure Karnak...when you're ready to fund the research let me know.
-
Sure Karnak...when you're ready to fund the research let me know.
I'd rather have htc spend it's resources on new AC modeling than failure rates of every engine in game.... but I'm funny like that.
-
Gyrene, you are a gamer. I wouldn't use the term with such elitist disdain.
The problem is you've been indoctrinated to think "your" game is right, and AH is wrong. Then you come to AH and "everything is all wrong!!" -- when you've just learned things the wrong way to begin with.
(fill in whatever "game" you want, I'm not pointing fingers or anything)
Re: failures... so what are the criteria of a part failing? Over-stressing past the tolerances it was designed for? Fractures/wear from being used long after its life? Wear-down of metals, rubber seals, gaskets?
Well, if you look at maintenance in WW2 and in fact even up to today, you'll find parts are made with a tolerance greater than that which they'll be used, and are inspected every sortie for cracks, wear, tear, and changed out with brand new parts on a very frequent basis.
So if the "failure" is from some random (yes, I said it) flaw, you should consider the odds of an engine properly maintained, and properly used. You're talking failures as if running an Allison engine at 3000 hp in the Reno races, rather than the 1150hp war-time use it was actually designed and built for.
There's "failures" because people did something risky (i.e. push something well past a breaking point, as in Reno races), then there's "failures" because the parts randomly are bad. The latter just doesn't happen much.
So if these predictable failures are all outstanding circumstances that NEVER happen and situations that NEVER come up in aces high, why should we have them modeled?
it's like saying "Okay, we should model atmosphere out to 100,000,000,000 miles, model the pull of the moon's gravity on the gas in your tanks, and make is so that landing on Mars is much easier due to the lighter gravity" -- all well and good, but the problem is you don't need to model any of that because in the scope of this game it's a non-issue.
-
Let me put it this way: Gyrene, by what criteria should AH engines fail? Spell it out for me.
-
Yes I am a pilot,only have around 1k hours, in fact you can fly my personal plane in the game. Tail number N346AK. And there is nothing wrong with the ball programing, but it is possible a plane has the gauge set up incorrectly, which one are you referring to.
HiTech
Coincidence? Or something more... :noid
-
by what criteria should AH engines fail? Spell it out for me.
I simply can't resist it Krusty. YOU KNOW exactly. But should engines fail as part of a system so that some pilots will have a reason, a damn good reason if its a long climb, to leave their favourite ride in the hanger and try something more reliable when their 109 pops a hole in number one cylinder because of a thoughtless control parameter. I say maybe...a strong maybe and certainly not a definite no. I would not say no at this point.
And the reason why I posted to this thread again. MOSQUITO's did not fail. Or should I say Canadian Made (Packard Merlins) (USA built Merlins) did not fail. Pilots crossed the Atlantic ocean in them. And this was how long after Amelia Earhart tried to nonstop in her Electra..when was it, at the start of the German invasions perhaps?
I would prefer to pilot a Canadian Mosquito that never fails, at 400mph than flogging a 109 up to 20000ft only to have a valve blow out when I got there.
And another thing, the ability to predict mechanical failure has been with us since the US put men on the moon. You can go back to school to learn how to do that if you think it can't be done. People who push "P" to plane go fast are the ones mostly likely to believe otherwise.
And Hitech, the turn ball is wrong and if it works off the flight physics model then your flight physics model is wrong too. Next time you're up in the air and doing a balanced turn, pull harder and maintain the same pitch and bank and tell me what the turn ball does.
-
I simply can't resist it Krusty. YOU KNOW exactly.
People who push "P" to plane go fast are the ones mostly likely to believe otherwise.
No, spell it out.
There's inputs and results. What does a pilot do to have their engine seize up on them? What must a pilot do for their plane to stop working?
If the answer is "nothing at all" then you haven't got a leg to stand on. You're asking for randomly generated engine failures. That's nothing more than a penalization of the player base for no benefit. Your engine might as well stop the second you start it. What's the point? You get a new plane, you get new lives.
If, on the other hand, you propose a specific sets of "if, then, that happens" then please spell out what a pilot must do (in your mind) and what the result is. Example: If gear down, exceed "gear speed," gear rips off....
If pilot does _________ then engine does ____________ ?
What must a pilot do to kill the engine, in your mind?
-
LOL Krusty...I'm not going to spell it out. I told you. I pilot the Mosquito almost exclusively. The Canadian Made Mosquito engines didn't fail. Failure is for the Euro trash. :neener:
-
Well Krusty, first I'm much less of a "gamer" than you...for me the idea of randomized failures wouldn't bother me nearly as much as it would the gamers who disdain anything more challenging than stirring the stick...and I have not been "indoctrinated" to think anything. I make my own decisions...
You are also wrong about manufacturing processes from 1936 to 1945...for instance aircraft and vehicle engine oil and fuel leaks that were considered "typical"...petroleum refinement processes were primitive...engine oil did not contain 40 additives to improve it's performance...gasoline was refined with higher sulfur, phosphorous and lead content, and it didn't contain any detergents...steel was not refined and graded the same as it is now...aluminum was as new metal alloy and no two countries used the same manufacturing process...rubber didn't contain high amounts of carbon, silicone and latex polymers...computer controlled injection molding systems didn't exist...machining processes were still done by hand using tolerances that varied from person to person depending on the quality of the tools they had to work with...every nut, bolt and screw on a vehicle or airplane was turned by hand and torqued to general specifications according to the physical capabilities of the person doing it...and don't try to tell me that an average woman of the 1940s could torque a bolt to the same tolerances as an average man of the same time period.
You assume "proper maintenance" according to current non-wartime non-combatant standards...and you assume erroneously...and I can tell you with some first hand authority as well as conversations with combat veterans from WWII, Korea and Vietnam...that "duct tape and bailing wire" is not just a tongue in cheek colloquialism.
During WWII, regardless of how much an engineer designed an engine to operate within specific ranges, by the time a copy of it rolled off the assembly line in a manufacturing plant...it's durability was subject to the limitations of manufacturing processes of the components, the people who produced the parts and the people who assembled those parts...Russian manufacturing was prehistoric and the U.S. had to use a mostly female workforce and build a manufacturing system that had little time for process refinement...Japan and Germany lacked the proper resources to raw materials...England had great engineering and production processes but they still couldn't produce an aircraft engine that didn't leak oil.
As well, it wasn't unusual for a military combat unit to acquire gasoline tainted with water, rust, oil or anything else...it also wasn't unusual for mistakes to be made by ground crews with something as simple as engine oil...
I have not once said that engine failure was a normal thing that occurred in every airplane on a daily basis, nor have I insinuated such...although if you look at the coveted B-29 it is well documented that engine failures occurred almost daily throughout its history...so someone please tell me, if the pinnacle of U.S. strategic bombers during WWII could suffer from engine failures with the latest advancements in aircraft engine manufacturing at the time, what would lead you to believe that the engines from any aircraft couldn't experience even a small percentage of engine failures with the thousands of hours spent at maximum performance under less than ideal conditions and manufactured without the aid of 21st century technology?
*EDIT* I think you have misread my intentions with my previous postings...yes it would be cool to have some of what Raster is talking about but...maybe even what Traveler is talking about but I don't have a problem with the way things are now.
-
Random failures of any type in this game, would just cause more trouble than it would be worth IMO. If we had a true simulation, I could see it, but for the game that it is, too many would scream foul cause of what it might do to a score.
I do however agree that failures did happen, heck they happen today. Only differences between 70 years ago and now? The percentages are lower. Having been a heavy equipment mechanic for a dealer for 20+ years I've seen it. Just the way it is. Components and parts can, and will fail at some point, not all of them, but some will, because nothing designed, modified, or built by man is perfect, just how it is.
:salute
-
to leave their favourite ride in the hanger and try something more reliable when their 109 pops a hole in number one cylinder because of a thoughtless control parameter. I say maybe...a strong maybe and certainly not a definite no. I would not say no at this point.
And the reason why I posted to this thread again. MOSQUITO's did not fail. Or should I say Canadian Made (Packard Merlins) (USA built Merlins) did not fail. [/color]
You are contradicting everything you have said.
-
Coming from a mosquito fanatic, me, this thread is stupid.
:aok
-
So basically everytime I want to takeoff in my B25 I'm going to have to do this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxhSmeAqD0g <--- Cool video of an An-2 doing startup procedures. Yeah.....5 minutes just to get the engines started would NOT be fun.
-
I have the best cartoon crew chief in Aces High. When I take off I know my plane is going to work perfectly the entire flight....right up until the time I get it broken.
Because of all the combat damage I suffer, my 38G always has new engines, wings, oil coolers, propellers etc. More often then not it's a brand new plane!
But keep in mind. If I have an hour to fly a couple nights a week, it would be areal disappointment to have to endure random failures or pointless start up procedures or in flight silliness put their to appease 'realism' junkies. Kind of a pain to fly 10-15 minutes to a fight, start mixing it up and have something randomly break. Give me another minute or too and I'll have someone in another cartoon plane break that part randomly for me.
Again I'll say it. Quit confusing 'realism' with 'immersion". That's on you to find in the game, not for HTC to try and model in by adding random mechanical failures etc.
-
start mixing it up and have something randomly break.
Theres different levels of "Random". The "random" that might be acceptable is after shooting my self in the head, I might die and probably would but its still random if I would be successful. They type of 'random' you suggest is unacceptable is the type that someone else holds down, puts the gun to your head and then pulls the trigger, the chances then are random if you will survive.
The type of engine failure that might have a place is the type of failure that 'might' occur if you push the engine past the 5 minutes. Where the plane currently turns its wep off automatically, you would be given the choice to leave it on and then...your the gambler who chose to face the random generator. You can't blame someone else at that point if it was your choice and you came up the loser. That might be workable because it gives you the choice to take a chance. Making it a chance and not a certainty is in your favour where the current system dictates. This is more what I would prefer rather than the current timer.
Never did I say that I wanted a 30 minute warm up. It would have to be some form of trainer simulation for real flight before that level of realism were put into aircombat simulation. What I was thinking is more specifically the things that make one plane preferred. Its hard to enjoy your favourite plane when in fact the cockpit looks nothing like the real version and the piloting of it is the same as any other. That's ok for now but I can't think it will be like this in the future. However, I still may not have explained myself well enough for some of the trolls who posted on my thread. I am only suggesting that with limited resources, that AH stick to being a flight combat simulation and not venture excessively into the ground war at the expense of fidelity. "Excessively' is the word I used.
-
I'm going to add one more thing as the former owner of this sim attached to my thread. The ground war in WW2online is rather fantastic. I enjoy it but I just don't enjoy piloting their planes at all. I can't actually pin down why but I don't. Hitech, if the development of the ground war has your bug, why are you not developing a WW1 online war simulation to attach to your new ww1 airwar simulation. I think a ww1 online simulation would be rather fun and honestly, ww1 flight simulation does not attract a big following. There are a lot of items in a ww1 simulation that would have my interest, ww1 tanks, some very strange and exotic. The use of gas and so on. A lot of potential for those who can venture in first. The ww2 ground war thing, been done.
-
I have to disagree strongly Raster. There would be nothing fun about sitting in a damp diseased trench for months on end within earshot of your enemy and then all jumping up at once and slowly walking towards machine gun nests. Tanks would be equaly as boring if you think about it. The only way a WWI ground war simulation would be fun is if the real tactics of WWI were not incorporated at all.
-
Lordy Lordy...random plane malfunctions and engine failures. Pay 15 quid a month and never get to fly because the plane falls apart. Half the fun is flying with your m8s. You can log in and get right to flying.
RAPSTER, I have a new idea to add to your realism scheme.
How about random pilot death like heart attacks, high blood pressure, seizures, depression, drug overdose stress, Dear "John" letters and your honey back home is shagging your buddy. All these can be built into the game engine too. It puts your pilot on the edge and could cause him to crack or die randomly. It would add even more realism to your random engine malfunctions.
AH has a good thing going. If they want super realism then create an arena for it and make it totally optional for those who enter it. Otherwise leave it alone. It's a good game and people who play it a lot already can handle the little quirks or problems of the game. A little tweak here and there is good, but too much either way and the AH boat will roll over and sink.
Now if we could just find away for everyone to stop hiding the CV's..hmmmmmmmmmmmm
-
Yes I am a pilot,only have around 1k hours, in fact you can fly my personal plane in the game. Tail number N346AK. And there is nothing wrong with the ball programing, but it is possible a plane has the gauge set up incorrectly, which one are you referring to.
HiTech
PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I simply can't resist it Krusty. YOU KNOW exactly. But should engines fail as part of a system so that some pilots will have a reason, a damn good reason if its a long climb, to leave their favourite ride in the hanger and try something more reliable when their 109 pops a hole in number one cylinder because of a thoughtless control parameter. I say maybe...a strong maybe and certainly not a definite no. I would not say no at this point.
And the reason why I posted to this thread again. MOSQUITO's did not fail. Or should I say Canadian Made (Packard Merlins) (USA built Merlins) did not fail. Pilots crossed the Atlantic ocean in them. And this was how long after Amelia Earhart tried to nonstop in her Electra..when was it, at the start of the German invasions perhaps?
I would prefer to pilot a Canadian Mosquito that never fails, at 400mph than flogging a 109 up to 20000ft only to have a valve blow out when I got there.
So, you want two things:
1. You want everyone to fly certain planes, most likely Mosquitos based on your spooging all over their reliability and benefits, and to limit the diversity.
2. You want everyone who chooses not to fly a Mosquito to be punished.
Also, I am fairly certain that 109 engines, especially those used in the early war years, were maintained and produced with similar quality control and had the same reliability as the Merlins. The only difference was that the later German engines were built under deteriorating conditions as the war moved closer and closer to the home front. Thus, the "You want everyone who chooses not to fly a Mosquito to be punished" point.
Ack-Ack was right.
-
deleted
-
I'm going to add one more thing as the former owner of this sim attached to my thread. The ground war in WW2online is rather fantastic. I enjoy it but I just don't enjoy piloting their planes at all. I can't actually pin down why but I don't. Hitech, if the development of the ground war has your bug, why are you not developing a WW1 online war simulation to attach to your new ww1 airwar simulation. I think a ww1 online simulation would be rather fun and honestly, ww1 flight simulation does not attract a big following. There are a lot of items in a ww1 simulation that would have my interest, ww1 tanks, some very strange and exotic. The use of gas and so on. A lot of potential for those who can venture in first. The ww2 ground war thing, been done.
"Well, bye"
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/curlybill.jpg)