Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Paladin3 on January 25, 2013, 07:32:34 AM
-
I was reading about the P51s used to fight over Japan late in the Second War and thought it would be much more realistic and a big immersion change to have damage be scalable. For example in one case a pilot noticed his oil pressure dropping. He did not get the big splatter but had to be in tune with his aircraft and monitor all those gauges that are in there. It would also give much more emphasis on the science of flying than the arcade feel that detracts some for players that want to depend on known variables in a sim.
-
I was reading about the P51s used to fight over Japan late in the Second War and thought it would be much more realistic and a big immersion change to have damage be scalable. For example in one case a pilot noticed his oil pressure dropping. He did not get the big splatter but had to be in tune with his aircraft and monitor all those gauges that are in there. It would also give much more emphasis on the science of flying than the arcade feel that detracts some for players that want to depend on known variables in a sim.
Shows I have alot to learn.. geez, thought you was talking about a more realistic take off/flying simulator. I agree for Graduated damage. I think the "all of nothing" aspect (as loon put it) isn't nearly as accurate as it should be. 33, 66, 100 would be best. +1 to this idea
Respectively,
Tinkles
:salute
-
I agree it would certainly add immersion to the sim/game, but micro-managing your plane in the name of simulation can be a bit distracting. Remember in WWII in many cases pilots would fly for hours and hours and not see a single enemy combatant. If AH did that they would lose customers quickly I do believe. There is a happy medium and I think HTC has done a good job for the most part.
One of the biggest things I'd like to see changed is allow for certain levels of damage in an aircraft. Currently, the damage model accounts for "all or none". When an aileron gets damaged it appears as it is %100 gone though I'm sure in WWII there were various degrees in which something was damaged. Why not have %33, %66, and %100 damage levels for control surfaces? We've all seen the photos and videos of various planes missing pieces of a control surface yet the control surface is still operable. The one I'm thinking of in particular is a B17 with a large part of its rudder blown away yet the rudder is still moving. Another thing is the severity of damage done to the engine and engine components. When "oiled" does an engine always leak at the same rate? Why not have various rates in which the oil leaks out? Same goes for radiator damage, does the leakage rate change if the radiator is pinged by a .30 cal bullet or a ripped apart by a 30mm HE? To be honest I have not timed anything to see if there is a difference, but going by the all or none damage to the control surfaces I'll assume engine components are the same.
Obviously, this would be a huge endevour for HTC to undertake, but who knows maybe they have something already in the works. If I'm not mistaken something was tested in the WWI server in regards to damage model? I do like how the heads of the pilots move to where you as a player are looking. :aok
-
+1 to this!
It would also be awesome if an oil hit in a Pony would cause the engine to die 30 minutes later, like the La-7.
-
I'm with you on that part, Loon. I would love to see graduated damage. One of my favorite parts of the game is to be in the heat of a fight, to hear and feel the bang from damage (I love force feedback), and if death or a quick trip to the ground don't occur, to check my damage list and see how much trouble I'm in.
The decision to stay and fight or RTB adds to the immersion of the game, so graduated damage would be a benefit. Parts that are damaged but still partially operable could be listed in yellow. Heck, holed fuel tanks, radiator leaks, and oil leaks should already be listed in yellow, as they're only on their way to being useless, not all the way there yet. Once your engine finally seizes up or your tank runs dry, then the damage is listed in red.
The same could be true for partially damaged control surfaces, for example. If your aileron gets shredded but is still 50% effective, it's listed in yellow. Furthermore, if you don't RTB but choose to stick out the fight, and pull too many Gs, then you can rip it off entirely. Then it would sort of be like your aircraft saying "I told you so."
I'm also against micromanagement, but I don't see this system as being any more distracting than the current damage system.
-
+1 Gimme some
-
+1 fly WW1 see how the damage model there works
DHawk
-
Yes please. Incremental damage would be a huge, huge addition to the game. IMO it would be pretty much the single best thing they could add, other than permasquelch. ;)
Wiley.
-
I take it one step further and don't use the damage list. I do a visual survey and feel the controls.
-
Yes please. Incremental damage would be a huge, huge addition to the game. IMO it would be pretty much the single best thing they could add, other than permasquelch. ;)
Wiley.
the reason for no perma squelch (you must have seen) if someone leaves and someone else takes the name...that new guy will be squelched.....
I can see why HTC does not do this. :salute
-
the reason for no perma squelch (you must have seen) if someone leaves and someone else takes the name...that new guy will be squelched.....
I can see why HTC does not do this. :salute
Oh yeah, I know why it's not there, I just don't agree with that decision. ;)
Wiley.
-
Oh yeah, I know why it's not there, I just don't agree with that decision. ;)
Wiley.
:rofl
I knew you did :neener:
-
missing pieces of a control surface yet the control surface is still operable. The one I'm thinking of in particular is a B17 with a large part of its rudder blown away yet the rudder is still moving.
The rudder on the B-17 has 3 or 4 hinges, control surfaces on many fighters will only have two hinges so something like your example would be less likely to have happened.
A friend was chasing a 262 with his Mustang. After a screaming dive he had managed to close and gotten hits on the 262, he was pretty sure he would have gotten a kill except the lower hinge on his rudder failed, the rudder cocked over and flipped him inverted on the deck. He said his attention was then focused on getting upright and getting home -- to heck wit the 262!!
-
The rudder on the B-17 has 3 or 4 hinges, control surfaces on many fighters will only have two hinges so something like your example would be less likely to have happened.
Agreed, but damage isn't always to the control linkages. A 50 cal punching a hole through the rudder or aileron, would make it less effective. The damage graduation would simulate that. Theres already a perset damage amount, which causes the control surface to be lost completely. Take %s of that and make the game calculate control surface forces based off that number (wouldn't be 100% accurate to real life but its a start). The same could be applied to wings. Too many holes in the left wingtip and it starts rolling left a little.
What I'd like to see more often are random engine malfunctions. Real life engines weren't (still aren't 100% reliable). For playability lets leave the probability of failure of a undamaged engine at 1%. So 99% of the time, the engine wont fail at take off or something. Now if the engine area takes damage (not necessarily an oil or radiator hit, just bullet holes) then increase that failure %. So if engine 2 is shot up (but not leaking), it might fail later, the longer you linger.
I wonder if the game currently allows for an engine failure from damage without the oil or radiator being damaged.
-
What I'd like to see more often are random engine malfunctions. Real life engines weren't (still aren't 100% reliable).
No. You want people to leave? Then give them a chance that their plane just won't work even if they haven't taken damage. There's NOTHING that will piss off or frustrate a player more than their plane randomly crapping out for no good reason other than probability.
-
I was reading about the P51s used to fight over Japan late in the Second War and thought it would be much more realistic and a big immersion change to have damage be scalable. For example in one case a pilot noticed his oil pressure dropping. He did not get the big splatter but had to be in tune with his aircraft and monitor all those gauges that are in there. It would also give much more emphasis on the science of flying than the arcade feel that detracts some for players that want to depend on known variables in a sim.
:airplane: :aok Good idea!!! What really chaps my "Fanny" is the fact that every engine hit covers your windshield in oil!!! That was never the case in most engine hits that I ever heard of. Most times, if not every time, an oil leak would flow back to the firewall, then downward and along the bottom of the aircraft. Sometimes you would see oil seaping along the top back half of the cowling, but most times, no. The only time i can think of for the windshield to become covered in oil, is if someone got a lucky shot and shot the prop governor off the crankcase, then it might blow back along the top of the cowling. The only other time would be on the "ho" shot, then if the front of the crankcase was punctured, then you might have a windshield covered with oil. Of course, Aces High had to come up with some sort of consistant damage to engines, so I guess we will have to put up with the windshield covered with oil, even though you might only have a hit in the reserve oil tank or damage to a push rod housing. At least the way they have it programed into the game, you know you have about 6 min's before the ole fan stops turning!
-
For playability lets leave the probability of failure of a undamaged engine at 1%.
1% is probably way to high. I've made somewhere around 6000-6500 flights in which I've had 7 engine failures on single-engine aircraft (many, many pilots never have an engine failure). That works out to about a .001% chance per flight of an engine failure if I've done the math correctly.
-
No. You want people to leave? Then give them a chance that their plane just won't work even if they haven't taken damage. There's NOTHING that will piss off or frustrate a player more than their plane randomly crapping out for no good reason other than probability.
You obviously missed parts of my post, here it is again with appropriate areas highlighted:
What I'd like to see more often are random engine malfunctions. Real life engines weren't (still aren't 100% reliable). For playability lets leave the probability of failure of a undamaged engine at 1%. So 99% of the time, the engine wont fail at take off or something. Now if the engine area takes damage (not necessarily an oil or radiator hit, just bullet holes) then increase that failure %. So if engine 2 is shot up (but not leaking), it might fail later, the longer you linger.
I wonder if the game currently allows for an engine failure from damage without the oil or radiator being damaged.
EDIT:
1% is probably way to high. I've made somewhere around 6000-6500 flights in which I've had 7 engine failures on single-engine aircraft (many, many pilots never have an engine failure). That works out to about a .001% chance per flight of an engine failure if I've done the math correctly.
These WW2 birds you been flying? Modern engines are ridiculously reliable as compared to the old weather worn, shortage infested, beaten up old buggers..... :D
Still, I get your point.......So lets make it a 100% for normal operations, but we can certainly put in a % modifier for failure after you've had a few bullets pumped in can't we?
-
You obviously missed parts of my post, here it is again with appropriate areas highlighted:
EDIT:
These WW2 birds you been flying? Modern engines are ridiculously reliable as compared to the old weather worn, shortage infested, beaten up old buggers..... :D
Still, I get your point.......So lets make it a 100% for normal operations, but we can certainly put in a % modifier for failure after you've had a few bullets pumped in can't we?
but what you need to think about is what would be the advantage from a game point of view? having random engine failures just for the sake of random engine failures would only get players upset and make them quit the game. so it's a lose-lose situation for everybody.
midway
-
+1 :)
-
but what you need to think about is what would be the advantage from a game point of view? having random engine failures just for the sake of random engine failures would only get players upset and make them quit the game. so it's a lose-lose situation for everybody.
midway
I'm willing to concede on the random engine failure point. I suppose that would take realism a bit too far, but I will not do so on the engine scaled damaging idea.
It might actually tone down some the 'fly till you die' mentality where people will stay engaged till they either go boom or are dropping to the ground like a brick, irrespective of whatever they are missing. As it stand right now:
Took 5 hits to engine, oil leak: I can fly for another 8-10 mins.
Took 5 hits to engine, radiator leak: I can fly for another 5-6 mins.
Took 5 hits to engine, no oil/radiator leak: I can fly till I die or run out of fuel.
I'd rather have: Took 5 hits to engine, no oil/radiator leak: Hmm, now do I stay engaged or head home.
Now I know that thats not what all the furballers would like, but it makes the game more engaging, more realistic and less arcade-ish.
That will pull in people rather than dispel them.
-
As it stand right now:
Took 5 hits to engine, oil leak: I can fly for another 8-10 mins.
Took 5 hits to engine, radiator leak: I can fly for another 5-6 mins.
Took 5 hits to engine, no oil/radiator leak: I can fly till I die or run out of fuel.
Radiator damage is completely separate from engine damage, FYI. If your radiator gets holed, it's not because someone put a bunch of rounds in your engine.
-
Radiator damage is completely separate from engine damage, FYI. If your radiator gets holed, it's not because someone put a bunch of rounds in your engine.
But they are all related. Point being it is a component of the engine.
-
No. You want people to leave? Then give them a chance that their plane just won't work even if they haven't taken damage. There's NOTHING that will piss off or frustrate a player more than their plane randomly crapping out for no good reason other than probability.
You mean like the stupidly modeled puffy ack? Went on to fly last night, popped 3K, instant fuel hit. Figured it was just terrible luck. Rolled again, popped 3K, boom, engine hit. Said eff this and went to the DA.
-
Adding randomly coded failures is a bad idea for any reason.
As far as the general wish for graduated damage, it will be simple to implement. All HTC has to do is rewrite the flight model; adding complexities for levels of damage for each damageable part, as well as multiple new graphics models that depict varying levels of damage. For every plane in the game.
Maybe after the planes with 1999 graphics models get updated, they will get right on that. :lol
-
Well the graphics can catch up later (I've been waiting on the 'jammed flap' graphic' since 1999) :D.
I'm thinking why limit it to just control surfaces. We have preset damage limits for wings and tails as well. Why not use that? If the wing has reached 30% of it max damage limit, let it produce 10-20% less lift. (Ofc thats not really real world accurate where it would greatly depend on the location of the damage etc.) but it would be a start.
And damage implementation for these isn't a seperate 3D object. Just a common texture overlay that can be applied generically to all aircraft (like the holes and tears than we currently have) would be sufficient. Thats the easier way to implement it imho.
Edit:
Radiator damage is completely separate from engine damage, FYI. If your radiator gets holed, it's not because someone put a bunch of rounds in your engine.
As someone who flies the 38 a lot, I appreciate that Sax, however the point I'm trying to make is we don't really model engine damage due to bullets being pumped into it atm. If it didnt completely die when it got hit, it wont die ever. We only model, oil system damage, radiator system damage and complete engine failure.
-
Adding randomly coded failures is a bad idea for any reason.
As far as the general wish for graduated damage, it will be simple to implement. All HTC has to do is rewrite the flight model; adding complexities for levels of damage for each damageable part, as well as multiple new graphics models that depict varying levels of damage. For every plane in the game.
Maybe after the planes with 1999 graphics models get updated, they will get right on that. :lol
Not quite what they'd HAVE to do. They could just add a modifier to every component of the plane,like "condition", and have damage change condition from 100 to 66 to 33 to 0 which would be like it is now.
Maybe keep the power train parts the same as it is now, only apply it to control surfaces and flight surfaces. Have 2 graphics: pristine and damaged for feedback.
Have the condition mod affect whatever the part does. Rudder at 33 condition dors 33 percent of its normal authority. Wing at 33 would give 33 percent of its normal lift, etc.
Possibly tweak the values on some planes if for example a wing at 33 is never useful in any way on some planes.
Profit.
Wiley.
-
Not quite what they'd HAVE to do. They could just add a modifier to every component of the plane,like "condition", and have damage change condition from 100 to 66 to 33 to 0 which would be like it is now.
Maybe keep the power train parts the same as it is now, only apply it to control surfaces and flight surfaces. Have 2 graphics: pristine and damaged for feedback.
Have the condition mod affect whatever the part does. Rudder at 33 condition dors 33 percent of its normal authority. Wing at 33 would give 33 percent of its normal lift, etc.
Possibly tweak the values on some planes if for example a wing at 33 is never useful in any way on some planes.
Profit.
Wiley.
it is a waste of time. I would rather have them fix the airplanes that fly at full spend with only a wing and a 1/2 left.
midway
-
I like your graduated damage suggestion as historically accurate and as an addition to immersion. But I like we gamey-ness we have now better.
Consider this... My flaps work at 100% until they are completely destroyed. What you are suggesting would put me in a fight where one of my flaps isnt working correctly because it took a ping or two. That flap is either providing too much or too little lift in one wing, causing a slight roll.
As the game is currently, my flaps would be at 100% and I would not be rolling. It's gamey, but I would rather have everything running tip top until the end. Your suggestion would have us noticing surface failures at the slightest of damage.
Maybe this is what people want?
Now if they added hinges, that would be cool way to separate total failure from partial. In some cases this would add longevity to a part that never took a hit on the hinge. But now I'm adding a wish on top of a wish. I just meant to play devil's advocate.
-
it is a waste of time. I would rather have them fix the airplanes that fly at full spend with only a wing and a 1/2 left.
midway
Why would missing half a wing slow it down? It would have less lift, sure, but would the uncoordinatedness you'd need to have for somewhat level flight affect it that much?
Wiley.
-
Consider this... My flaps work at 100% until they are completely destroyed. What you are suggesting would put me in a fight where one of my flaps isnt working correctly because it took a ping or two. That flap is either providing too much or too little lift in one wing, causing a slight roll.
As the game is currently, my flaps would be at 100% and I would not be rolling. It's gamey, but I would rather have everything running tip top until the end. Your suggestion would have us noticing surface failures at the slightest of damage.
I think there'd definitely be two camps on something like this.
What I dislike about the current system is people can get in front of you for a quick snapshot nearly consequence free, sometimes 3 or 4 times. Realism is part of it, but also from a gaming perspective a guy that's let his opponent get guns on him, for however brief a time should not have his plane in factory showroom condition until that last bullet hits the part and it falls off.
Just MHO. My tastes are quite often at odds with the majority.
Ideally, I'd like to have it where shots on a flight surface lower the G tolerence for it and make it more prone to structural failure if they pull too hard. That might be asking a bit much though.
Devil's advocating that for a moment, it could be the reason they haven't done it is because it might encourage spraying at a guy from anywhere on the way in just to get some kind of hits on him and degrade his performance so you have a better chance once the fight starts. The way it is now, you're better off in most cases waiting for the quality shot.
I still think it would be a better system, and would add a lot more to the game than more eye candy or maps.
Wiley.
-
Question: What happens (generally) in real life when an aircraft takes damage vis a vis cockpit controls? I've seen modern footage of pilots trying to restart stalled engines during flight; sometimes they can and sometimes they can't.
If HTC were to implement a more nuanced damage system, would there be any point to jabbing at your keyboard as if you were in the cockpit, trying to restart an engine, stomping on your rudder or yanking your yolk to try and free a stuck control surface, or pulling on your flaps lever for the same reason? Would there be any realism to "fixing" a problem purely by cockpit controls?
It seems to me that it might be cool to unstick a control surface or flap by yanking on the cables enough, or get an extra few minutes of engine time by forcing a restart (the crew chief can complain about it later). It would be fun to exit a fight, mess around for a minute to try to fix a problem, and then either return to the fight or RTB.
-
Question: What happens (generally) in real life when an aircraft takes damage vis a vis cockpit controls? I've seen modern footage of pilots trying to restart stalled engines during flight; sometimes they can and sometimes they can't.
If HTC were to implement a more nuanced damage system, would there be any point to jabbing at your keyboard as if you were in the cockpit, trying to restart an engine, stomping on your rudder or yanking your yolk to try and free a stuck control surface, or pulling on your flaps lever for the same reason? Would there be any realism to "fixing" a problem purely by cockpit controls?
It seems to me that it might be cool to unstick a control surface or flap by yanking on the cables enough, or get an extra few minutes of engine time by forcing a restart (the crew chief can complain about it later). It would be fun to exit a fight, mess around for a minute to try to fix a problem, and then either return to the fight or RTB.
The problem overall that I see with more realistic things (like graduated damage) and "random failures" I.E. engine, radiator etc.. The problem is, in real life you would have to deal with the problem only when playing out (taking hours upon hours of time, some pilots only few a few sorties others, quite a few). Point being, why would I want to deal with mundane controls over and over. If I die, in real life- I'm dead, don't have to deal with any of the problems again. However, in Aces High I have to deal with all of these problems again, each and every time. I wouldn't find that fun.
It's a nice concept overall and I do support it. But is it something we REALLY want? Sure I'm all for realism and historical accuracy, but then it gets old after awhile, doing the same repetitive tasks over and over, dying from the same engine failures or radiator hits. Sure, it's realistic, but is that why you want to get a kill? You want to get the "proxy" kill from a target who had plane troubles? Or be a victim of a kill, because your plane has troubles? I create my own troubles in my planes I don't need any assistance with that.
So overall, I say it would be a nice feature; but look at it in the long-run, would it be worth it overall?
Just my thought.
Respectively,
Tinkles
:salute
-
Just to be clear I am only in support of damage from combat. I do not want random mechanical failures.
-
Just to be clear I am only in support of damage from combat. I do not want random mechanical failures.
Ditto me. Random malfunctions are just not good for gameplay.
Wiley.
-
Sheesh people let the random failures go already! I really seem to have stirred up a hornet's by suggesting for the possibility of 1% (which at the time I believed would make it almost impossible to occur) and have since agreed to not being a good idea! :bolt:
Apologies if I didn't make that clear enough in my earlier post. :P
I'm willing to concede on the random engine failure point. I suppose that would take realism a bit too far.................
-
Sheesh people let the random failures go already! I really seem to have stirred up a hornet's by suggesting for the possibility of 1% (which at the time I believed would make it almost impossible to occur) and have since agreed to not being a good idea! :bolt:
Apologies if I didn't make that clear enough in my earlier post. :P
1 question
why does it matter to you.......if a guy wants to fly till he is dead or out of ammo?
you suggest stopping this type of "behavior"....this is exactly how I fly and have flown since tour 52.....I am doing something wrong :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch: :headscratch:
-
The problem overall that I see with more realistic things (like graduated damage) and "random failures" I.E. engine, radiator etc.. The problem is, in real life you would have to deal with the problem only when playing out (taking hours upon hours of time, some pilots only few a few sorties others, quite a few). Point being, why would I want to deal with mundane controls over and over. If I die, in real life- I'm dead, don't have to deal with any of the problems again. However, in Aces High I have to deal with all of these problems again, each and every time. I wouldn't find that fun.
It's a nice concept overall and I do support it. But is it something we REALLY want? Sure I'm all for realism and historical accuracy, but then it gets old after awhile, doing the same repetitive tasks over and over, dying from the same engine failures or radiator hits. Sure, it's realistic, but is that why you want to get a kill? You want to get the "proxy" kill from a target who had plane troubles? Or be a victim of a kill, because your plane has troubles? I create my own troubles in my planes I don't need any assistance with that.
So overall, I say it would be a nice feature; but look at it in the long-run, would it be worth it overall?
Just my thought.
Respectively,
Tinkles
:salute
Ditto
Zaphod
-
The damage modeling has always been AH's weakest point. Sure, other games may have better graphics, but that has little practical effect on the game play, while damage modeling has a much greater impact.
Random damage and malfunctions is not good for gameplay. Do not go down that road, you will not like where it ends, if it ends at all.
-
+1
I think this would be more realistic, than rudders and alerons just falling off... make the flight profile better
-
+1
-
Random damage. Nope.
Much more nuanced damage. Yep.
I'd even vote to ditch the damage list, to encourage a greater one-ness with the aircraft.
Also, I loathe getting my canopy plastered in oil every single time!!
-
Random damage. Nope.
Much more nuanced damage. Yep.
I'd even vote to ditch the damage list, to encourage a greater one-ness with the aircraft.
Also, I loathe getting my canopy plastered in oil every single time!!
Stop going for the HO and you will notice that doesn't happen as much! :devil