Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Charge on August 24, 2011, 07:48:54 AM
-
I'd really like to see more variation of damage. By this I mean that eg. some engine hits would slowly cripple the engine if run at full boost because of the taken damage or some leaks or damage which could gradually develop into a fatal fire. Canopies blown away and increased drag due that, damage on lifting surfaces that would make then severe under high G load, engine damage that would not allow full power anymore etc etc. What else?
If that seems like too much for MA use it could be made switchable in arena settings menu so we could have it in scenarios to increase immersion.
-C+
-
A more extensive damage model? I agree!
That include partial damage to control surfaces too! :aok
-
totally super needed :aok
-
sounds good to me.
Throw a damaged radio on the list. Make it so that planes flying through an oil trail from another damaged plane get oil on their wind screen, not as thick as the damaged plane but still some. How about control cables shot away, your control surface is still there but stick or pedal input has no affect on it. Tire blow outs if you are on the brakes when you touch down.
-
Charge, I agree, but the piece I am fuzzy on is: Will any enhancements to the damage model tax peoples systems or make the game less stable? I recall reading that terrains needed to be simple to a certain extent and stable to be used for MA flying. Anyway, the thought crossed my mind.
-
I remember a mention of the WWI arena was partially about testing a new damage model, and that it would be phased in to the MAs over time... Is this still in the works?
-
:aok
-
I remember the same thing Knite mentions. If memory serves it was to have effects along the lines of if your plane was shot up a bit, there would be added drag due to the holes in the fuselage/wing.
I'm really looking forward to this in the WWII arenas, and hope it's still on the plate for the semi-near future. I would expect it will need to be implemented across the board at once, otherwise the planes with the new system would be at a grave disadvantage to the planes using the old system.
Wiley.
-
What I'd like to see as to the damage model, is something along the lines of what Fighter Ace has. Meaning, your control surfaces can actually take damage, and the more they have, the less useful they become. I would be sad, however, to see a "xxxx has shredded your wing/aileron/engine/whatever.
-
might be nice but theres a ton of other stuff I'd like to see sorted out first, so
+½
-
"Will any enhancements to the damage model tax peoples systems or make the game less stable? "
Those that I threw in would not, but it will surely take a lot of time from any other stuff that is bound to come as RTH already suspected...
-C+
Ed. What is basically does is that when a part is hit the system has a sortiment of possible additional failures that can kick in when main part is hit and the effect is just random. As in case of engine hit there can be a lot of things that can break up without taking the engine out straight away.
-
I don't think it would be too hard on the Operating Systems in question. Maybe if they just had an image/animation for a xxxx(<-- insert plane part there) at 100% health, 50% health, and 0%--destroyed completely.
By the way, Charge, have you ever seen/played Fighter Ace?
Come to think of it, anyone in this thread ever play it?
-
I tried it very long time ago but as I was already in AH I decided to consume my energy here. Usually different games have a bit different strengths and of course it would be nice to have them all in one game, just the one you are playing at the moment, but I don't think that will ever happen.
But lets Wish. :D
-C+
-
That's true. Nice little bit of wisdom there. :aok
-
I remember a mention of the WWI arena was partially about testing a new damage model, and that it would be phased in to the MAs over time... Is this still in the works?
Definately check out WWI if you'd like to see how this can work. They've now changed it so you cannot see the entire list of systems that can be damaged, but when WWI first came out, it filled up half of your screen. There's surface damage, surface loss, damage to paneling (or in this instance fabric)... all of which is really sweet. I still don't notice a huge loss in performance on my DVII when I have missing elevator covering as opposed to a missing elevator, but the model is definately there. Fine tuning it seems to be in order.
Perhaps a historical frame involving WWI planes might be in order some time soon to get a good number of people flying those for a consistant time to actually get some numbers crunched off the data...
-
How about disconnecting the controls for the constant speed propeller(s), or the propeller losing its fluid and thus going to max or minimum pitch (I forget which would happen without the fluid).
-
engine needs to be remodeled the most. Running 100% power with full pitch and full rich mixture and 14lbs of boost at sea level = hear some things pop, maybe pitch changes a bit, boost pressure leaks, then oil lines rupture and covers the windscreen, etc. etc. force people to be gentle with their enignes instead of full power from takeoff to landing.
-
engine needs to be remodeled the most. Running 100% power with full pitch and full rich mixture and 14lbs of boost at sea level = hear some things pop, maybe pitch changes a bit, boost pressure leaks, then oil lines rupture and covers the windscreen, etc. etc. force people to be gentle with their enignes instead of full power from takeoff to landing.
The engines weren't that fragile. Running at higher boost settings mainly decreased the time between overhauls.
One Spitfire V pilot panicked and ran at WEP for ~30 minutes. After landing his engine was inspected and no damage found. R-2800s were run at WEP for 24 hours in the factory during tests without failing.
-
The engines weren't that fragile. Running at higher boost settings mainly decreased the time between overhauls.
One Spitfire V pilot panicked and ran at WEP for ~30 minutes. After landing his engine was inspected and no damage found. R-2800s were run at WEP for 24 hours in the factory during tests without failing.
Well IMO the R-2800 was a lot tougher than say the Merlin 1650. I've got a copy of Jane's that states: "common problems were coolant leaks, cylinder head splits, and failure of camshafts and crankshaft bearings during routine flight"
Not much is listed for anything else, but common pilot knowledge among the GA world (especially The M20F variants with the Garret turbo-normalized IO-360s) is that boosting at sea level could cause major problems and catastrophic failure. Not saying those engines are as fragile as a Lycoming, but then again I'd bet there have been quite a few cases of powerplant failures from time to time.
A damage model like on from MSFS would be great. A random engine failure for running full power or maybe a severe vibration from the imbalance of the prop from getting hit and having pitch set wrong. I mean with as many parts as these things have rattling about. Something is bound to fail. Right now its a little bland either having a rad leak, complete engine failure from prop strike, or oil leak. Like it was said earlier, there have been cases of R-2800s coming home missing a few cylinders. How cool would it be have a shot up Corsair lugging home with a engine coughing and sputtering but still making some power?
How about disconnecting the controls for the constant speed propeller(s), or the propeller losing its fluid and thus going to max or minimum pitch (I forget which would happen without the fluid).
You'd have to find engine-specific examples for the WW2 planes. For instance, I know in a plane such as a Arrow or Bonanza, loss of oil pressure sends it into max pitch meanwhile a PT6-A on a Caravan losing oil pressure sends it into Beta.
-
I am sure there were plenty of such failures. I have read of many.
However, those engines likely had a flaw, a manufacturing defect or something that had developed later. In AH we are given new, "perfect" aircraft for each sortie.
Nobody wants to be having a furious fight in their P-38 against a Ki-84, finally, in a spiral climb, approaching a gun solution only to have the random number generator decide that their #2 engine just conked out. Ki-84 spirals up, then comes down and kills the P-38. Sure, the Ki-84 pilot, not even knowing the P-38 suffered an engine failure, may think it was a great fight. Do you think the P-38 pilot will think so? He won't feel like the Ki-84 pilot beat him, he'll feel like the random number generator beat him.
-
I think that we need to separate this random damage model from usage model in regards to engines.
Refined engine usage model has been discussed first time years ago and it was a consensus that it should not be implemented, at least not in MA environment as people want to focus on ACM, not engine management.
I supported an advanced engine usage model then, but I fully understand that it would take the fun out of game for too many people. However it would increase the immersion in scenarios as they would try to simulate the "real deal" more closely.
However, it seems that there is a pressure to introduce lots of switchable stuff in scenarios, as per different requests on Wishlist lately, but as the main action happens in MA where these features would usually be disabled I do not see beneficial for HTC to spend time on matters that fall to secondary category from priority perspective but which require lots of work.
But the random damage model could be implemented also on MA, IMO.
-C+
-
You'd have to find engine-specific examples for the WW2 planes. For instance, I know in a plane such as a Arrow or Bonanza, loss of oil pressure sends it into max pitch meanwhile a PT6-A on a Caravan losing oil pressure sends it into Beta.
that's interesting, I always assumed it was the opposite usually for piston engines, singles go fine pitch, multis go coarse/feather with no pressure.. I wonder why that is, I figured you'd want a twin to go to feather for the same reason you feather a dead engine, and fine pitch on a single to still be able to make best power if it's only the prop that failed. :headscratch:
-
Charge, I agree, but the piece I am fuzzy on is: Will any enhancements to the damage model tax peoples systems or make the game less stable? I recall reading that terrains needed to be simple to a certain extent and stable to be used for MA flying. Anyway, the thought crossed my mind.
theyve already extensified the damage model with no problems. don't think it would if they did it again
-
that's interesting, I always assumed it was the opposite usually for piston engines, singles go fine pitch, multis go coarse/feather with no pressure.. I wonder why that is, I figured you'd want a twin to go to feather for the same reason you feather a dead engine, and fine pitch on a single to still be able to make best power if it's only the prop that failed. :headscratch:
You're confusing yourself. Beta IS a measure of feathering fine pitch. Likewise, coarse pitch for a piston is the same thing as pushing prop lever forward for more thrust.
A fine pitch propeller has a low blade angle (more "vertical") and will take a 'small' bite of the air, each rotation will try to move forward a small distance through the air. It requires relatively low power to rotate, allowing high propeller speed to be quickly developed, but achieving only limited airspeed. This is like having a low gear in your car.
A coarse pitch propeller has a high blade angle (more "horizontal"), will try to advance a long distance through the air with each rotation, it will take a big 'bite' of the air. It requires greater power to rotate, limiting the propeller speed that can be developed, but achieving high airspeeds. This is like having a high gear in your car.
-
I wish for more damage smoke, watch some gun cam videos and those planes are just belching smoke from every hole I the plane.
-
+1
-
I wish for more damage smoke, watch some gun cam videos and those planes are just belching smoke from every hole I the plane.
Meh. Somehow it has to be frame rate friendly. Maybe not a stream of smoke but like a big puff or something? Smoke kills my FPS
-
You're confusing yourself. Beta IS a measure of feathering fine pitch. Likewise, coarse pitch for a piston is the same thing as pushing prop lever forward for more thrust.
wait a sec... now you're the one confusing me :D .. I thought beta was essentially NO pitch, close to reverse on turboprops.. feather is ~ 90 degree pitch / prop stopped
and pushing prop lever forward increases RPM no? this would be generally reducing prop pitch
-
Most civil aircraft go flat pitch with loss of oil.
My guess would be (i Know some do but havn't looked at all) fighters go full pitch with oil pressure loss. Some also have electrical.
My RV also goes max pitch, this is normally referred to as an aerobatic prop. The reason is that in zero G maneuvers you can temporarily loose oil pressure because the valve that switches oil flow works with gravity, and it can be stuck in the middle at zero g. This does not really cause any problems except that if the prop goes flat pitch when you are at full power as in a zero g vertical zoom the engine will almost instantly over rev (not a good deal). And hence loading up the engine is a much better trade off.
HiTech
-
I like it anything to put the game on a new level of........................... ............................. ..yea some word I cant think of right now... :banana: :bolt:
-
You're confusing yourself. Beta IS a measure of feathering fine pitch. Likewise, coarse pitch for a piston is the same thing as pushing prop lever forward for more thrust.
A fine pitch propeller has a low blade angle (more "vertical") and will take a 'small' bite of the air, each rotation will try to move forward a small distance through the air. It requires relatively low power to rotate, allowing high propeller speed to be quickly developed, but achieving only limited airspeed. This is like having a low gear in your car.
A coarse pitch propeller has a high blade angle (more "horizontal"), will try to advance a long distance through the air with each rotation, it will take a big 'bite' of the air. It requires greater power to rotate, limiting the propeller speed that can be developed, but achieving high airspeeds. This is like having a high gear in your car.
This is way way wrong. The prop lever does not control pitch directly it controls RPM!!!!!!!!
Pushing the prop lever forward sets the RPM governor to a greater RPM. To increase RPM for the same Manifold pressure requires less bite of the air by the prop, hence lever forward = smaller bite of air. As your speed increases the governor increases the bite of your prop to maintain the same RPM.Max power is achieved at MAX RPM. Hence when power is needed all levers go forward and the prop beta is decreased to give max HP .
HP = Torque * RPM.
Manifold pressure controls torque.
Prop pitch controls RPM.
Move either lever forward you get more HP.
HiTech
-
hey HT's back from his vacation?
-
Meh. Somehow it has to be frame rate friendly. Maybe not a stream of smoke but like a big puff or something? Smoke kills my FPS
Make it selectable
-
Pictures of consequences of prop going fine pitch at speed: http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/wings.htm
-C+
-
I know that not everyone would welcome engine management but what if it was selectable like combat trim?
Combat trim takes some of the fiddly work out of flying but, it's a trade off, max performance versus ease of flight. Why not the same option for engines with a similar trade off? Leave it all on auto and you'll have easy flying and reliability but not max performance. Switch it to manual and you'll have immersion and a performance edge but you're forced to manage it or you'll lose the engine. Just to keep people honest you'd have to select it BEFORE the sortie.
-
I know that not everyone would welcome engine management but what if it was selectable like combat trim?
Combat trim takes some of the fiddly work out of flying but, it's a trade off, max performance versus ease of flight. Why not the same option for engines with a similar trade off? Leave it all on auto and you'll have easy flying and reliability but not max performance. Switch it to manual and you'll have immersion and a performance edge but you're forced to manage it or you'll lose the engine. Just to keep people honest you'd have to select it BEFORE the sortie.
Now THAT is a great idea. Although I do see an advantage to those who have a throttle quadrant (ME!!!!)
-
This is way way wrong. The prop lever does not control pitch directly it controls RPM!!!!!!!!
How is it "way wrong"?
I never said the pitch lever directly controls pitch, I was stating the difference between the two pitch angles. You're basically going into greater detail of what I said.....
-
I know that not everyone would welcome engine management but what if it was selectable like combat trim?
Combat trim takes some of the fiddly work out of flying but, it's a trade off, max performance versus ease of flight. Why not the same option for engines with a similar trade off? Leave it all on auto and you'll have easy flying and reliability but not max performance. Switch it to manual and you'll have immersion and a performance edge but you're forced to manage it or you'll lose the engine. Just to keep people honest you'd have to select it BEFORE the sortie.
How often do you currently adjust your RPM in AH?
HiTech
-
Just sayin... I adjust my RPM every time I need to dead stick into a field and am far enough away I need to get as much distance as I can.
I'm ashamed to admit... it happens often. :)
Wiley.
-
How often do you currently adjust your RPM in AH?
HiTech
almost every single flight.. why bring more gas just get better fuel milage
-
How often do you currently adjust your RPM in AH?
every sortie for fuel management (and immersion - cruising level just doesnt sound/feel right with the engine pulling as hard as it can) :)
edit: btw HT nice job on the engine modelling - I use the WWII pilot notes power instructions for all the aircraft I usually fly and going by the RL book produces the same results in AH :aok
-
every sortie for fuel management (and immersion - cruising level just doesnt sound/feel right with the engine pulling as hard as it can) :)
edit: btw HT nice job on the engine modelling - I use the WWII pilot notes power instructions for all the aircraft I usually fly and going by the RL book produces the same results in AH :aok
Thats not the RPM that's changing
-
You can change the RPM, numpad +/- does it. I'm no expert, but I can't tell the difference between reducing RPM and just reducing manifold.
-
You can change the RPM, numpad +/- does it. I'm no expert, but I can't tell the difference between reducing RPM and just reducing manifold.
x2.
Plus I'm a control freak. This is why I have a CH Products Throttle Quadrant.