General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: RedBeard on February 20, 2017, 03:25:12 PM
Title: More realism...
Post by: RedBeard on February 20, 2017, 03:25:12 PM
This probably sounds like flame bait, but I'd like more realism (probably means more challenging difficulty as well). Here are some thoughts:
Weather patterns - we already have a bit of this, but it would be nice to tie more things into this. In particular:
non-standard temperatures - cold in winter, hot in summer, cooler in morning, warmer in afternoon. Affects performance. Potential for icing up high as temperature falls off and IFF humidity is appropriately high. Humidity should increase with altitude until above the cloud layer. Potential for multiple layers.
Pressure zones - wind flows from hi-pressure zones to low pressure zones (affects direction). Pressure zones move in semi-random directions on map. Closer the pressure zones, the higher the wind between them. Winds at altitude are generally higher than surface winds (drag affects direction and speed).
Surface winds - Include wind socks and/or chimney smoke trails and surface winds up to 5-10 mph. It's nuts having people takeoff and land from opposite directions on runways. Let's get a little wind at ground level to make people think about what they are doing.
Clouds based on weather conditions - clouds condense into layers when it cools (night, mornings) and are thicker in lower pressure zones (where humidity collects) and least thick in high pressure zones where dry air sinks.
Low level turbulence - I don't think I've ever flown a plane in RL that didn't get bounced around at least some when below 3000'. The more wind or more heating there is, the more turbulent down low it should be.
Vehicle mechanics possibilities:
Manifold pressures - Changing RPM doesn't seem to affect manifold pressures. If I'm at full power and pull back the RPM, the manifold pressure should climb. If I do it too much, the engine should blow.
Gun sight ranging - although I'm fairly used to flying now without this (as long as I fly a consistent range from a target), it could be interesting to add sight ring range size control.
Torpedo sights - The PT boat needs a torpedo aiming mechanism (see http://mathscinotes.com/2013/06/aiming-torpedoes-from-a-pt-boat/)
U-boats - It would be really interesting to be able to send out wolf packs of U-boats from sub pens to harrass fleets / shipping lanes (ocean equivalent of rail lines).
Direct control of destroyers with depth charges - Ability to take control of a fleet destroyer(s) to drop depth charges on suspected or spotted U-boats.
Cargo fleets - Ships supplies from factories across the water to island communities. Equivalent to trains on land.
Strategic gameplay:
Make logistics / interdiction more important:
Factories provide everything and everything must be moved to each airfield.
Aircraft are drone ferried from A/C factories to fields.
Fuel, ammo, oil are supplied to airfields by rail and truck convoy. Rail from factory to depot. Truck convoy from depot to base. Rail lines can have switches to allow more than one route to a depot.
Reduction in supplies to a field/base means less less capabilities (e.g. less fuel/oil means shorter flights and/or restriction in number of flights that may leave a field per given unit of time).
Staying alive becomes as important as getting kills. Losing an A/C depletes the available aircraft supplies at a field. Depleting them too quickly could mean being required to fly something else or fly from somewhere else.
Damage is important. Returning a damaged vehicle to a field puts it out of commission for a period of time until it can be repaired and returned to the available fleet of vehicles.
Squadron bonuses / losses:
Squadrons pick a "home" field. Flying from a home field could provide an extra bonus of some kind (e.g. perhaps a higher availability of resources for that squadron). That makes that field important to that squadron in order to keep the bonuses it provides.
Anyway, the idea is that while flying and shooting things down or blowing things up is an interesting aspect, there should be deeper and more profound impacts that require people to think, work together, and react as a group. It doesn't prevent the lone ranger from doing what they like, but weather and logistics should be important as they have always had a significant impact on war. Also, knowing intimate details about how a vehicle works should improve your ability to use it effectively. We need more detailed control over the planes and vehicles we have today. That allows those that really want to get the most out of their plane/vehicle to fine tune it for a particular need or use it in ways that are more effective than default settings.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: hitech on February 20, 2017, 03:39:31 PM
The only reason it sounds like flame bait is because you put it all under the heading of more realism.
Skip that and your list is fairly standard.
One item we already have is Manifold pressure does change with rpm if the turbo charger can no longer produce the desired settings.
HiTech
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: RedBeard on February 20, 2017, 04:20:56 PM
Ah, very good point. I'd forgot about turbocharger waste gates.
Chalk one off the list. :)
Red Beard
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: icepac on February 20, 2017, 06:48:12 PM
I feel the players could do a lot to promote realism with thier behavior.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Vraciu on February 20, 2017, 08:10:06 PM
Point of order. Pulling a prop control all the way to the rear will kill the engine in airplanes designed to feather (multi-engine airplanes for example).
This hysteria with oversquaring (i.e. having more manifold pressure than RPM as in 21"/1900 RPM instead of 21"/2100 RPM) engines is a bit overblown. Normally aspirated engines can be oversquared by quite a lot depending on the manufacturer. Turbos can be oversquared by even more.
I don't think you'd blow the engine if you yanked the RPM back. You'd start having all kinds of issues with the engine running like crap. It might even just quit. Can't say for certain, of course, since I've never done it. But you can feather from max power. I've done that more than once with no damage done.
In a training environment it's all about "climbing the hill and descending the hill" (Mixtures, Props, Throttles for increasing power, Throttles, Props, Mixtures for reducing power) but when it hits the fan, especially low, slow, and heavy that goes out the window. I'm grabbing stuff by the handful on the way up. I know of many who advocate being right there at the prop levers on takeoff in light twins to get into feather as soon as possible. Having seen a smoking hole or two I can see why they think that way.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: RedBeard on February 20, 2017, 09:26:58 PM
I wasn't trying to be hyper-sensitive to manifold pressure. Originally, I didn't understand why the manifold pressure didn't increase (having experience with a normally aspirated Mooney), but Hitech set me straight and I understand that. Yes, even the Mooney power settings allow for MP greater than RPM under normal flight conditions.
There could still be various issues that aren't modeled today such as prop over speed, over heat permanently causing engine damage, mixture control, manual fuel tank switching (required for planes that didn't feed from all tanks), engine start sequences, etc.
I can kind of see not including mixture as many of the engines had an automatic mixture control. However, starting a large radial engine is not as simple as pushing the E key. You had to prime and crank the engine while counting blades and start when the engine was appropriately primed, otherwise you'd blow a cylinder head or flood it (my dad had great stories of T-28 students blowing cylinder heads on startup). You wouldn't think this important to game play, but it makes a significant difference when trying to get into the air quickly and yet having to do things right to prevent something bad happening to the engine. Vapor lock could be an issue for someone who shuts down for hot padding.
Regarding smoking holes, twins, and feathering, it seems the early P-38 was notorious for losing an engine and needing to feather. I've noticed an impact in dialing back the RPM, but it's impossible to feather in AH3 (unless I've missed something). I do note that there are other threads regarding prop feathering already though.
As far as RPM causing an engine to blow goes, I'm guessing that it would probably only affect normally aspirated engines (causing heat build up faster than normal) unless the turbo has a damaged waste gate.
Manual fuel tank selection is just one of those things. Imagine your drop tank being empty so you punch it. All of a sudden your engine starts to cough because you forgot to manually switch tanks before dropping the DT. Combine this with air restart procedures and suddenly tank selection becomes important. Another related thing is people that put the minimum fuel in the planes and takeoff for a quick fight and never worry about fuel. If you had to remember to manually switch tanks in a fight, you might think twice about having minimal fuel and suddenly having a tank go dry in the middle of a turn fight.
Auto / combat trim is another topic, but right now, I'm not ready to give that up.
I guess the thing I was trying to get to was that a default or auto control that is provided today (auto mixture, engine start, fuel handling, turbo speed selection, trim) should be sub-optimal and there should be manual controls that allow people to improve on the sub-optimal auto behavior by learning how the plane really should work and using those controls to their optimum manual effect.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Vraciu on February 20, 2017, 10:15:19 PM
Not accusing you in particular, just making a general observation on this issue IRL. :salute
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: JVboob on February 21, 2017, 08:04:17 AM
Factories provide everything and everything must be moved to each airfield.
Aircraft are drone ferried from A/C factories to fields.
Fuel, ammo, oil are supplied to airfields by rail and truck convoy. Rail from factory to depot. Truck convoy from depot to base. Rail lines can have switches to allow more than one route to a depot.
Reduction in supplies to a field/base means less less capabilities (e.g. less fuel/oil means shorter flights and/or restriction in number of flights that may leave a field per given unit of time).
Staying alive becomes as important as getting kills. Losing an A/C depletes the available aircraft supplies at a field. Depleting them too quickly could mean being required to fly something else or fly from somewhere else.
Damage is important. Returning a damaged vehicle to a field puts it out of commission for a period of time until it can be repaired and returned to the available fleet of vehicles.
Squadron bonuses / losses:
Squadrons pick a "home" field. Flying from a home field could provide an extra bonus of some kind (e.g. perhaps a higher availability of resources for that squadron). That makes that field important to that squadron in order to keep the bonuses it provides.
I really like many of your ideas on strategic gameplay, and would add that Ports could become "factories" of a sort by receiving trade goods and supplies and unloading/storing them at port warehouses - which feed into the rail system, the same as factories would. Ports and dockside warehouses, rail yards and rolling stock then become valid targets, affecting the enemy's ability to supply bases to 100%.
Also like the idea of home fields for squads; though I'm not sure what kind of carrot could be offered - maybe a break from ENY limitations, or reduction in perk costs, or as you say access to full resources (maybe ordnance, or 100% fuel when not available for others at this field)
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: caldera on February 21, 2017, 10:19:28 AM
The realism I would like to see implemented is the requirement to engage the enemy. Real WWII pilots didn't avoid fighting when they lacked supreme advantage.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Skuzzy on February 21, 2017, 12:16:32 PM
The realism I would like to see implemented is the requirement to engage the enemy. Real WWII pilots didn't avoid fighting when they lacked supreme advantage.
I'll dispute this. I had a personal phone call from a WW2 P38 pilot after he started playing the game and spent a good deal of time on the phone with him listening to his stories.
One in particular involved him and his wingman doing their best to outrun a couple of enemy fighters because they had lost the advantage in the fight. They did a 1G dive to the deck and extended away. I laughed a bit when he said, "I don't think the cows appreciated us mowing their field".
Just saying.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Ack-Ack on February 21, 2017, 01:34:17 PM
I guess the thing I was trying to get to was that a default or auto control that is provided today (auto mixture, engine start, fuel handling, turbo speed selection, trim) should be sub-optimal and there should be manual controls that allow people to improve on the sub-optimal auto behavior by learning how the plane really should work and using those controls to their optimum manual effect.
The auto features (trim, fuel, etc.) were implemented for game play reasons. This is a combat sim, and as such game play concessions were made for the player to focus on the combat aspects of game. That is why we have a simplified engine management system, auto-fuel, etc.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: ImADot on February 21, 2017, 02:15:50 PM
The auto features (trim, fuel, etc.) were implemented for game play reasons. This is a combat sim, and as such game play concessions were made for the player to focus on the combat aspects of game. That is why we have a simplified engine management system, auto-fuel, etc.
Exactly why I play here; I want to fly a good flight model, and fight other humans in WW2 planes. I also really like complex simulations, but I'd rather not have to mess with fuel mixes, supercharger settings, and the dozens of other "realism" things being asking for in the OP. Just let me fly and fight.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: icepac on February 21, 2017, 06:25:42 PM
Many action reports I've seen have the phrase "saw the enemy above and climbed to them"
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Vraciu on February 21, 2017, 06:39:13 PM
Exactly why I play here; I want to fly a good flight model, and fight other humans in WW2 planes. I also really like complex simulations, but I'd rather not have to mess with fuel mixes, supercharger settings, and the dozens of other "realism" things being asking for in the OP. Just let me fly and fight.
The auto features (trim, fuel, etc.) were implemented for game play reasons. This is a combat sim, and as such game play concessions were made for the player to focus on the combat aspects of game. That is why we have a simplified engine management system, auto-fuel, etc.
I will also add, based on personal experience, that a keyboard, mouse, and game stick are poor substitutes for actual cockpit controls. The concessions made are, IMHO, a balanced tradeoff to overcome this limitation.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: lunatic1 on February 22, 2017, 03:29:40 AM
•non-standard temperatures - cold in winter, hot in summer, cooler in morning, warmer in afternoon. Affects performance. Potential for icing up high as temperature falls off and IFF humidity is appropriately high. Humidity should increase with altitude until above the cloud layer. Potential for multiple layers. •Pressure zones - wind flows from hi-pressure zones to low pressure zones (affects direction). Pressure zones move in semi-random directions on map. Closer the pressure zones, the higher the wind between them. Winds at altitude are generally higher than surface winds (drag affects direction and speed). •Surface winds - Include wind socks and/or chimney smoke trails and surface winds up to 5-10 mph. It's nuts having people takeoff and land from opposite directions on runways. Let's get a little wind at ground level to make people think about what they are doing. •Clouds based on weather conditions - clouds condense into layers when it cools (night, mornings) and are thicker in lower pressure zones (where humidity collects) and least thick in high pressure zones where dry air sinks. •Low level turbulence - I don't think I've ever flown a plane in RL that didn't get bounced around at least some when below 3000'. The more wind or more heating there is, the more turbulent down low it should be.
I once ask for rain-but was told it would be a problem with some of the players computers--and you want all that ^^it's not needed
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: RedBeard on February 22, 2017, 08:47:58 PM
The auto features (trim, fuel, etc.) were implemented for game play reasons. This is a combat sim, and as such game play concessions were made for the player to focus on the combat aspects of game. That is why we have a simplified engine management system, auto-fuel, etc.
There's nothing wrong with having the auto systems. What I was trying to say was that they should be sub-optimal to allow those that want to take over control to get the optimal performance. It's just another challenge and wouldn't require anyone to use it.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Fletcher on February 22, 2017, 10:17:20 PM
I for one am skeptical of the modeling of manifold pressure in the game due to the fact that in the game, it reads 0" engine off at sea level, and 0" at engine idle.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: SIK1 on February 23, 2017, 12:22:14 AM
There's nothing wrong with having the auto systems. What I was trying to say was that they should be sub-optimal to allow those that want to take over control to get the optimal performance. It's just another challenge and wouldn't require anyone to use it.
Honestly I would be fine with that if it was just those that wanted to. The problem is I don't really want HTC to do all the work required to make it possible only to find people don't want to be bothered with adjusting manifold, mixture, rpm, cowl, inter cooler, oil cooler flaps every two or three thousand feet, and the associated failures for not doing so properly. Instead maybe we could get the beaufighter in game. That would be awesome. :airplane:
If you really want to see what it took to fly one of these old warbirds check out http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/ There are some really cool videos of the actual training films on many of the aircraft we fly in AH.
:salute Sik
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: OldNitro on February 23, 2017, 06:39:11 AM
Geez, there isn't enough to remember in this game already? :O
If I had to deal will all the little details of flight management? It wouldn't be worth the trouble! I have other things to do in life.
How many months of REAL MILITARY TRAINING did a pilot have to endure, before they would turn over a REAL P51 to him? :joystick:
Or launch him off a carrier in a Hellcat?
I like realism, and immersion, but IMO (as a noob), it can be carried too far. :bolt:
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Bushmills on February 23, 2017, 07:21:41 AM
This request is quite amateurish in terms of realism, I would go one step further and have a pilot's bar simulator, if the pilot is drunk flying this should reflect on screen take gta5 for example, and no getting off with it easy! If you have been drinking it should take maybe 8 hours to leave your bloodstream!
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Dobs on February 23, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
Wind effects which change your nose position vs causing drift..
Torque effects in the air vs just on the ground...
Not sure why you would need variable stadiometric ranging gunsights when we have perfect ranging available to us via icons...other than immersion.
Equal visibility for air and ground in respect to icons...
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: hitech on February 23, 2017, 11:13:53 AM
Wind effects which change your nose position vs causing drift..
Torque effects in the air vs just on the ground...
Both are already completely modeled.
HiTech
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: DeadStik on February 23, 2017, 12:03:14 PM
There's a trade off with increasing realism. It makes the game inherently more challenging, decreasing the appeal for new arrivals. Already the aerodynamics are real enough to scare away those used to arcade style environments. I like the idea of increased realism from an immersion standpoint, but don't think player to player skill should be measured by aircraft "housekeeping" aspects. It should boil down to energy management and situational awareness in 3D space.
Not saying your ideas are bad ones. I think they're neat, but I fear the negative impact for many players. Especially newcomers.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Dobs on February 23, 2017, 12:28:16 PM
Wind: So your aircraft changes heading or ground track in the air? Every aircraft I've flown drifted with airmass, you had heading and you had ground track. You crabbed to correct or you ended up homing to a point vs tracking to a point.
Torque is minimal at best.. Comments like this "It had one major drawback, however, in that if an inexperienced pilot gave it too much throttle on take-off, the powerful Pratt-Whitney R2800 engine produced so much torque that it could flip the plane over. " seem to be common place.
The video h ere
at the 6:20 mark calls for 6 degrees of rudder trim and 6 degrees of right aileron trim to be set prior to takeoff. Yet none is required in game...nor is right stick required...just a smidgen of right rudder to keep all 2000 hp straight....
I understand the taming down of the massive horsepower beasts to make it flyable for all...but the call was for increased realism. I'm not sure any of the aircraft will snap off to the left in a right hand turn near stall speed. Just my observations to date...
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: horble on February 23, 2017, 12:58:22 PM
Could combat trim be auto adjusting for most of it?
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Mister Fork on February 23, 2017, 01:57:08 PM
Could combat trim be auto adjusting for most of it?
All of it except some of the larger torque engine aircraft when you engage WEP - it'll require some stick correction unless you use 'auto level' feature. Tiffy, Bf-109K4 come to mind.
What I still want to see is rain and snow coupled with thunderstorms. I'd like to see 'temperature' modelled as well. Slippery/icy runways. But, I know Aces High is not FSX - still would be cool if we could simulate weather. Unfortunately, Aces High is always nice pleasant warm days.
Even with winter skins, aircraft engines act like it's a summer day.
And then, most of us go...who CARES! ACES HIGH IS STILL COOL! Challenging to fly on any given day in good weather! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: hulk31st on February 23, 2017, 02:04:52 PM
I agree and support parts of the original request:
Quote
"U-boats - It would be really interesting to be able to send out wolf packs of U-boats from sub pens to harrass fleets / shipping lanes (ocean equivalent of rail lines). Direct control of destroyers with depth charges - Ability to take control of a fleet destroyer(s) to drop depth charges on suspected or spotted U-boats. Cargo fleets - Ships supplies from factories across the water to island communities. Equivalent to trains on land.
Strategic gameplay: Make logistics / interdiction more important:
Factories provide everything and everything must be moved to each airfield. Aircraft are drone ferried from A/C factories to fields. Fuel, ammo, oil are supplied to airfields by rail and truck convoy. Rail from factory to depot. Truck convoy from depot to base. Rail lines can have switches to allow more than one route to a depot. Reduction in supplies to a field/base means less less capabilities (e.g. less fuel/oil means shorter flights and/or restriction in number of flights that may leave a field per given unit of time). Staying alive becomes as important as getting kills. Losing an A/C depletes the available aircraft supplies at a field. Depleting them too quickly could mean being required to fly something else or fly from somewhere else. Damage is important. Returning a damaged vehicle to a field puts it out of commission for a period of time until it can be repaired and returned to the available fleet of vehicles."
And I would like to see the trees and ground change with seasons. Winter, spring, summer, etc.
But I do not support anything that makes playing the game any more complex than it already is. My tiny brain is maxxed out!
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Dobs on February 23, 2017, 02:18:06 PM
All of it except some of the larger torque engine aircraft when you engage WEP - it'll require some stick correction unless you use 'auto level' feature. Tiffy, Bf-109K4 come to mind. ... And then, most of us go...who CARES! ACES HIGH IS STILL COOL! Challenging to fly on any given day in good weather! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Amen! Great game for sure!
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: popeye on February 23, 2017, 02:36:21 PM
Torque is minimal at best.. Comments like this "It had one major drawback, however, in that if an inexperienced pilot gave it too much throttle on take-off, the powerful Pratt-Whitney R2800 engine produced so much torque that it could flip the plane over. " seem to be common place.
I understand the taming down of the massive horsepower beasts to make it flyable for all...but the call was for increased realism. I'm not sure any of the aircraft will snap off to the left in a right hand turn near stall speed. Just my observations to date...
In the early days of AH, the F4U was truly an "ensign eliminator". I probably crashed on the first ten attempts to get one in the air, and every takeoff was a nail-biter. Maybe that was too much realism, but it did seem to jive with actual pilots' accounts. Of course, the real fun is "in the air" not in trying to get there.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: hitech on February 23, 2017, 03:36:47 PM
Dobs the wind is correct , and there has been no taming down of horse power. The only concession I make is in how I model the tail wheel linkage.
As for torque, it is a term that many many people like you throw around and do not really understand. In reality torque has very very little to do with the rudder angle. The primary forces causing the yaw are slip stream,pfactor and gyro. On the start of take off slip stream is the primary factor.
HITech
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: FLS on February 23, 2017, 03:51:24 PM
I just read a book by an English Corsair pilot who said that the reason pilots had trouble with torque in the F4U was because they couldn't push the rudder fast enough to compensate for full power if they hadn't set the rudder trim correctly. Aces High is easier, not because the torque isn't fully modeled, it's easier because there is no resistance to the rudder controller.
He also told a story of mechanics closing hanger doors to stop pilots from flying through the hanger. :D
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: FLS on February 23, 2017, 04:34:55 PM
Torque effects in the air vs just on the ground...
...
Have you seen my airshow videos? They feature torque effect maneuvers. Except the P-38. :D
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: BFOOT1 on February 24, 2017, 09:55:02 AM
+1 to the ground winds, and socks or chimney smoke.
+1 to squadron home fields. In WWII both sides knew where which groups were operating. I think that could add to some very interesting fights for home fields.
One thing I'd like to see outside of the O-Club on the field, or outside of the control tower or hangers, would be lawn chairs, tables, some trucks, or if possible some ground crew walking around the field.
I feel that that could easily add the realism factor for some, by adding this things if possible. :salute
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: JunkyII on February 24, 2017, 11:02:22 AM
Think a lot of people don't realize wind is "turned off" in the MA which makes them think there is no wind in the entire game.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Zoney on February 24, 2017, 11:35:12 AM
+1 to the ground winds, and socks or chimney smoke.
+1 to squadron home fields. In WWII both sides knew where which groups were operating. I think that could add to some very interesting fights for home fields.
One thing I'd like to see outside of the O-Club on the field, or outside of the control tower or hangers, would be lawn chairs, tables, some trucks, or if possible some ground crew walking around the field.
I feel that that could easily add the realism factor for some, by adding this things if possible. :salute
It would be nice for squads to be able to "logo" their fields with those lawn chairs. :)
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: RedBeard on February 24, 2017, 03:33:37 PM
Uh, no. The MA has wind sir. And it is at different directions depending on the altitude.
Agreed, it's just up high though with rather arbitrary / regular 90 degree wind direction changes with increases in altitude. We need some surface wind just to get (most of) us flying in the same direction.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: RedBeard on February 24, 2017, 03:49:08 PM
If we got surface winds such that take off and landing were typically in the same direction on the same runway, then I'd start thinking about suggesting friendly collisions provided we changed from a single takeoff position to a stack of them that start on the taxiway at the runway threshold and run back along the taxiway at regular intervals such that when you launch, you start on the taxiway not overlapped with anyone else.
If we did this, we'd have to start talking with each other regarding pattern positions and intentions (hmm, Range channel becomes CTAF. Sounds familiar to pilots). It would help with immersion. It might also have more interesting consequences for hordes chasing a single enemy aircraft. There would likely be less of that or more chatter about butting into the chase. Of course, I'm more of a trusting person, so I'm ignoring the chances of suicide gankers, but I'll arguing points against that if we get there.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: BowHTR on February 24, 2017, 03:54:17 PM
If we got surface winds such that take off and landing were typically in the same direction on the same runway, then I'd start thinking about suggesting friendly collisions provided we changed from a single takeoff position to a stack of them that start on the taxiway at the runway threshold and run back along the taxiway at regular intervals such that when you launch, you start on the taxiway not overlapped with anyone else.
If we did this, we'd have to start talking with each other regarding pattern positions and intentions (hmm, Range channel becomes CTAF. Sounds familiar to pilots). It would help with immersion. It might also have more interesting consequences for hordes chasing a single enemy aircraft. There would likely be less of that or more chatter about butting into the chase. Of course, I'm more of a trusting person, so I'm ignoring the chances of suicide gankers, but I'll arguing points against that if we get there.
There would more a negative impact. this means you have to wait if someone is on the rearm pad. What if someone spawns on the runway in front of you? Now you cant takeoff. This would just be more ways for others to be griefed.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Lusche on February 24, 2017, 04:00:27 PM
(...) then I'd start thinking about suggesting friendly collisions (...)
massive griefing potential
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: RedBeard on February 24, 2017, 04:21:16 PM
There's a difference between intentional and unintentional griefing. I can see unintentional griefing getting fixed by community ettiquette. There's also the option of taxiing in the grass if someone in front isn't moving and the pattern is otherwise clear.
Intentional griefing is another matter. There are a number of ways to fix that ranging from passive delayed takeoff times after collisions with delays increasing exponentially to active self policing with the ability for friendlies to shoot down intentional griefers (i.e. collisions can get you flagged personally as kill shooter off).
I'd be willing to bet that most of the AH community now is well behaved and well intentioned enough that this wouldn't be an issue. It's been a really long time since I've seen anything like the pilot hunts that used to happen in Air Warrior when someone was being particularly obnoxious.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Lusche on February 24, 2017, 04:24:13 PM
(...) I can see unintentional griefing getting fixed by community ettiquette. (...) I'd be willing to bet that most of the AH community now is well behaved and well intentioned enough that this wouldn't be an issue.
No way.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: BowHTR on February 24, 2017, 04:33:50 PM
There's a difference between intentional and unintentional griefing. I can see unintentional griefing getting fixed by community ettiquette. There's also the option of taxiing in the grass if someone in front isn't moving and the pattern is otherwise clear.
Intentional griefing is another matter. There are a number of ways to fix that ranging from passive delayed takeoff times after collisions with delays increasing exponentially to active self policing with the ability for friendlies to shoot down intentional griefers (i.e. collisions can get you flagged personally as kill shooter off).
I'd be willing to bet that most of the AH community now is well behaved and well intentioned enough that this wouldn't be an issue. It's been a really long time since I've seen anything like the pilot hunts that used to happen in Air Warrior when someone was being particularly obnoxious.
I can promise you it will be used for griefing. The kids now a days get quite a bit of fun messing/trolling others. On another note, this would require to much hassle for those that want to get in and play. If i wanted to request takeoff, taxi, rearm, and what not I'd go play Microsoft flight sim or something of that nature. I get that you want to add more immersion and realism, but I don't think that this is one of the routes to go.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: SIK1 on February 24, 2017, 04:39:27 PM
When you hear that you are seventeenth in line for take-off you might not like the realism so much.
:salute Sik
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: hitech on February 24, 2017, 04:42:45 PM
There's a difference between intentional and unintentional griefing. I can see unintentional griefing getting fixed by community ettiquette. There's also the option of taxiing in the grass if someone in front isn't moving and the pattern is otherwise clear.
Intentional griefing is another matter. There are a number of ways to fix that ranging from passive delayed takeoff times after collisions with delays increasing exponentially to active self policing with the ability for friendlies to shoot down intentional griefers (i.e. collisions can get you flagged personally as kill shooter off).
I'd be willing to bet that most of the AH community now is well behaved and well intentioned enough that this wouldn't be an issue. It's been a really long time since I've seen anything like the pilot hunts that used to happen in Air Warrior when someone was being particularly obnoxious.
LOL
Sir, with all due respect, you must be playing a different game than I.
This would be a disaster of epic proportions.
Yeah, OK, let's try this, I just want to sit in the tower and watch for a few minutes.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: The Fugitive on February 24, 2017, 05:22:20 PM
Personally I think the game has more than enough realism as it is. The game is easy to start, difficult to master. The right mix of of game playablity, and realism. Adding more realism would scare away a "casual" flying who isn't interested in adjusting this, or taxing here and waiting for a spot and so on.
The game is made to be played and have some fun. I dont want to have to study a manual to get off the ground and keep my plane in the air.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: JunkyII on February 24, 2017, 05:25:49 PM
Uh, no. The MA has wind sir. And it is at different directions depending on the altitude.
The quotes around "turned off" were not clear enough I apologize, I know there is wind in the MA(I know where to go to actually see the setting) but the wind is not very noticeable compared to say if you go above 6K on a map setup for KOTH or above 20K in tomorrow's scenario setup....you are going to notice it very quickly. (You don't have to think about the wind in a flight because you don't notice it enough to effect the fight)
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Wiley on February 24, 2017, 05:38:55 PM
The quotes around "turned off" were not clear enough I apologize, I know there is wind in the MA(I know where to go to actually see the setting) but the wind is not very noticeable compared to say if you go above 6K on a map setup for KOTH or above 20K in tomorrow's scenario setup....you are going to notice it very quickly. (You don't have to think about the wind in a flight because you don't notice it enough to effect the fight)
It doesn't happen often, but I know I've had more than one buff attack thrown off by going through a wind layer.
Zoney- What percentage of the people you see flying go above 14k? ;) For them, for all intents and purposes wind is off in the MA.
Regarding friendly fire and friendly collisions, no possible good could come of that. Fly scenarios/FSO for your friendly fire fix. I've always wanted to see how much flavor friendly collisions in a scenario/FSO would add, but it would take a long time to launch.
Wiley.
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: Vraciu on February 24, 2017, 07:38:07 PM
It doesn't happen often, but I know I've had more than one buff attack thrown off by going through a wind layer.
Zoney- What percentage of the people you see flying go above 14k? ;) For them, for all intents and purposes wind is off in the MA.
Regarding friendly fire and friendly collisions, no possible good could come of that. Fly scenarios/FSO for your friendly fire fix. I've always wanted to see how much flavor friendly collisions in a scenario/FSO would add, but it would take a long time to launch.
Wiley.
Oh for sure you are correct, the TA152 also seems to feel it more(wider wings have more effect???) but like you said...under 14K you see 90%ish of the community
Title: Re: More realism...
Post by: JVboob on February 25, 2017, 09:25:55 PM
Personally I think the game has more than enough realism as it is. The game is easy to start, difficult to master. The right mix of of game playablity, and realism. Adding more realism would scare away a "casual" flying who isn't interested in adjusting this, or taxing here and waiting for a spot and so on.
The game is made to be played and have some fun. I dont want to have to study a manual to get off the ground and keep my plane in the air.