Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 100Coogn on April 07, 2014, 05:01:35 PM
-
When the engine is damaged to a point that the damaged engine sound wave begins to play, reduce the engine performance as well.
Maybe to around 75% or so. Nothing too crazy.
Coogan
Edit: that's a lot of 'engines' in the first sentence. :lol
-
Agreed :aok
-
This is something I've always thought was holding back one of the "realism" factors of AH: the all or none damage system.
Why not have partial damage? Why cant engines just lose some compression but still function? Why cant control surfaces be partially damaged? What cant one of the bomb bay doors be damaged and unable to be opened? Why cant tanks have turrets damaged so the traverse rate is reduced or even immobilized? Etc etc.
There are dozens and dozens of things in AH that could be adjusted for partial damage. Control surfaces would be priority if HTC ever decided to model it.
-
This is something I've always thought was holding back one of the "realism" factors of AH: the all or none damage system.
Why not have partial damage? Why cant engines just lose some compression but still function? Why cant control surfaces be partially damaged? What cant one of the bomb bay doors be damaged and unable to be opened? Why cant tanks have turrets damaged so the traverse rate is reduced or even immobilized? Etc etc.
There are dozens and dozens of things in AH that could be adjusted for partial damage. Control surfaces would be priority if HTC ever decided to model it.
What probably bugs me the most are the flaps. Example: If they are full out and you lose one, IT STILL THERE, despite the CLEAR fact that it was shot away. :bhead
-
More better graduated damage yes good +1 happy funtime.
For all the reasons listed above. A control surface/system with 99 bullet holes that works factory fresh, and then with the 100th falls off is ok, but it could be so much better.
Wiley.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,359841.0.html
Here you go. 7 pages of arguing about how a more detailed damage model would destroy the fun of the game.
(For the record, I'm one who WANTS a more detailed DM).
-
What probably bugs me the most are the flaps. Example: If they are full out and you lose one, IT STILL THERE, despite the CLEAR fact that it was shot away. :bhead
Visually it is shot away. In the actual flight model it is modeled as jammed in whatever state it was in when it was destroyed.
-
Visually it is shot away. In the actual flight model it is modeled as jammed in whatever state it was in when it was destroyed.
I know. That's what bugs me.
-
When the engine is damaged to a point that the damaged engine sound wave begins to play, reduce the engine performance as well.
Maybe to around 75% or so. Nothing too crazy.
Coogan
Edit: that's a lot of 'engines' in the first sentence. :lol
I ripped the sump off a Panda car and drove it back to the station pretty rapidly, it didn't have a marked loss of performance until I got it back and it siezed on the car park in front of the mechanic :uhoh
-
PLEASE +1 for this!! HItech!!!! double bill me and keep 15 for yourself if you put this on!!
-
hi fidelity damage model has to go hand in hand with realistic gunnery, I still kill moving fighter planes 800 yards out and I'm not alone, it was uncommon to kill more than 400 yards out.
Warbirds tried that but unfortunately they reverted it back to quake-birds, still you need more hits to kill enemies there than here at range.
-
Ah! Never thought of it. :huh
Good thinking. :aok
-
hi fidelity damage model has to go hand in hand with realistic gunnery, I still kill moving fighter planes 800 yards out and I'm not alone, it was uncommon to kill more than 400 yards out.
Warbirds tried that but unfortunately they reverted it back to quake-birds, still you need more hits to kill enemies there than here at range.
Given the sizes of the rounds are modeled correctly, the muzzle velocities and round drag is modeled correctly, the aircraft sizes are modeled correctly, what exactly would you do to make gunnery more historical?
-
Isn't the biggest reason why we can hit things from 800 out is because of the icon??? fly icons of and you'd be surprised how close you actually get without the range computing.
-
When the engine is damaged to a point that the damaged engine sound wave begins to play, reduce the engine performance as well.
Maybe to around 75% or so. Nothing too crazy.
Coogan
Edit: that's a lot of 'engines' in the first sentence. :lol
+1 :aok
-
Isn't the biggest reason why we can hit things from 800 out is because of the icon??? fly icons of and you'd be surprised how close you actually get without the range computing.
As has been said elsewhere, removing icons will actually make things LESS realistic. It's not the icons that make gunnery too easy at long ranges, unless it's a matter of the range indicator being too precise (thoughts: what would you all think about showing the aircraft ID and, if the rate of closure or opening is sufficiently high, giving a + or - to indicate this, but NOT showing the actual range?).
The real problem I think is the environment. There's not really any air out there; it's a vacuum. There's no turbulence, prop wash, slip streams, thermals, high and low-pressure areas, none of the myriad little factors that would impact flight and gunnery. I think it's been confirmed that ground effect does exist, and the last time I flew I think I saw wind layers being used in the Mains, but the wind is at a consistent airspeed and direction in each altitude band, with no gusting or direction changes, but otherwise the game is a static environment.
-
+1, provided it differentiates between damage that would reduce engine output, and stuff that wouldn't. You can still run at full power with a radiator or oil leak, you'll just do serious damage to the engine at some point.
-
As has been said elsewhere, removing icons will actually make things LESS realistic. It's not the icons that make gunnery too easy at long ranges, unless it's a matter of the range indicator being too precise (thoughts: what would you all think about showing the aircraft ID and, if the rate of closure or opening is sufficiently high, giving a + or - to indicate this, but NOT showing the actual range?).
The real problem I think is the environment. There's not really any air out there; it's a vacuum. There's no turbulence, prop wash, slip streams, thermals, high and low-pressure areas, none of the myriad little factors that would impact flight and gunnery. I think it's been confirmed that ground effect does exist, and the last time I flew I think I saw wind layers being used in the Mains, but the wind is at a consistent airspeed and direction in each altitude band, with no gusting or direction changes, but otherwise the game is a static environment.
There is also no flexing of the aircraft, wing twist and so on and on.
Icons play almost no role beyond letting you know something is there. The ranges haven't been precise for more than a decade.