Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Swoop on November 08, 2002, 06:48:36 AM
-
There are lots of things that simply aren't modelled for MA use, the reason is probably that the whine level would go through the roof.
What I'm talking about are such things as random mechanical failures, propar engine overheat, bird strikes, gun jams, fog,
Engine overheat: Right now we all tend to full on full power all of the time, in real life you cant do that. Firstly your effective range would drop waaaay below what it should be and secondly you're damaging the engine. When you run an engine at max power for a long time it'll slowly overwhelm the cooling system, the engine will begin to sound slightly off, a ringing noise is generated as the piston rings melt themselves. Then you get a condition known as 'power fade due to overheat' where the engine simply doesnt generate the power it should do. Finally the engine will start to misfire until detonation occurs and the engine stops.
What I would propose would be a gradual overheat when run at anything over 75% power, giving you say 20 minutes of full power flight before you start to notice the symptoms. 20 minutes is plenty long enough during a furball, after that get out and let the engine cool or you'll find yourself without one.
What this would mean in real terms is that people would cruise around at more realistic speeds. Bomber formations would actually be catchable by the slower aircraft for example. It also brings a new aspect of combat into the equation.....does the fella I'm chasing have a cool engine or has he been furballing for 15 minutes and really needs to get away now.....?
Gun jams: Certain aircraft are known for frequent gun jams. Even in older sims like European Air war, gun jams were modelled. For example in a P51B if you tried any kind of shot under a G load the guns would jam, shots had to be taken in an unloaded state or you'd soon find yourself down to 1 .50cal. Again, in the MA this has no place.....but the Mission Arena would be different.
Fog: Damn wouldnt that be cool to have moving fog banks in the arena.......that formed in the early morning and cleared slowly as the day wore on.......
I dunno......wadda ya'all think?
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/626629.jpg)
-
Bursting Blader: Gota go so bad you can't aim right.
The Squirts:Soiled your undies and the Crew bails.
Crotch Itch: Constant preocupation with this destroyes your SA.
In all seriousness swoop If I had to bet I would say it will be kinda like the CT in many regards except for the scripting, and the fixed planeset/time frame.
-
Originally posted by brady
Bursting Blader: Gota go so bad you can't aim right.
The Squirts:Soiled your undies and the Crew bails.
Crotch Itch: Constant preocupation with this destroyes your SA.
In all seriousness swoop If I had to bet I would say it will be kinda like the CT in many regards except for the scripting, and the fixed planeset/time frame.
Actually, these are already modeled in AH. I wish HTC would remove them.
-
Sounds good to me. Just add 1:1 fuel consumtion and 1:1 mapscale, and it would be perfect.
-
Those are all good idea's Swoop. I think it would turn AH more toward the SIM side from the Arcade side. Granted, as you said, they have no place in the MA. However, the Mission Arena is supposedly more for the Simmers, so idea's like this would add to my immersion.
-
Engine overheat? YES!!!
Random failures? NO!!! That would only be an annoying "feature".
Gun jams? NO!!! See above.
Fog? YES!!! and rain and snow and...
-
I'd be more interested in flying the mission arena if those features were present.
-
Manual Mixture control, in respective planes.
Overheating: Yep
Random Failures: Yep
Fog: Yep
Gun Jams: Yep. If possible according to historical occurence of that in respective weapons.
Yes, I think I'd like that :)
Cheers,
-
Originally posted by Duedel
Engine overheat? YES!!!
Random failures? NO!!! That would only be an annoying "feature".
Gun jams? NO!!! See above.
Fog? YES!!! and rain and snow and...
ditto
-
That's why Swoops and other's ideas would work in Mission Arena. Hell, if we had 'em in CT, I'd fly there alot more.
Air Warrior had 2 main arenas (Full realism, and relazed realism).
HTC could do the same here without upsetting the subscribers from AW. Main arena stays as it is (Quasi-Full realism).
Mission arena becomes ULTA-Realism. Hell, I'd even ask for traffic patterns and friendly A/C collisions being on, so pilots would have to call out on local their landing intentions at uncontrolled runways.
This might be a bit much, but I would enjoy it. The only hitch would be that friendly collision would have to be off on runway launches, as missions have planes spawning all at the same spot.
Possible solution....and I can hear you guys creaming already....have all A/C in Mission Arena Spawn in Hangars. As soon as you taxi out of hangar, Friendly collisions are on.
*ducks and covers*
-
YES!!!
-
I quite like that idea Muck, no collisions in hanger would work fine.....dont know how easy it would be to code though.
Just for interest......why are people shaking heads at gun jams? I mean, it's not like I'm suggesting all guns could jam at any time with no warning. Pilots would have to "learn" which type of guns jam when firing under a G load and adjust their flying accordingly.......thats all.
As for the other stuff in my list, well it's the engine overheat that I feel is the most important. Flying full throttle everywhere is the most unrealistic part of this sim IMO, forcing people to use some kind of engine management would simply have the effect of making people think a little more about their situation......and slow down a bit.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/626629.jpg)
-
So, I guess there'd be no inflight radar, auto takeoff, auto trim, auto fuel tank selector, autopilot, auto retracting flaps, auto prop feathering, auto engine temp monitor, ammo counters, runway spawns, or "snap" views?
Think anyone would play?
-
Originally posted by Swoop
Just for interest......why are people shaking heads at gun jams? I mean, it's not like I'm suggesting all guns could jam at any time with no warning. Pilots would have to "learn" which type of guns jam when firing under a G load and adjust their flying accordingly.......thats all.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/626629.jpg)
Swoop..it is because they, like me, are aware of Murphy's Law, which states that if there is a possiblity that something may go wrong...it will, usually at the most painfully annoying moment.
But, I think it IS a great idea. I'm all for your suggestions.
-
Leave it "normal" settings (certainly at first) or it will die on the vine. History teaches us not everyone wants these tihings.
-
Originally posted by popeye
So, I guess there'd be no inflight radar, auto takeoff, auto trim, auto fuel tank selector, autopilot, auto retracting flaps, auto prop feathering, auto engine temp monitor, ammo counters, runway spawns, or "snap" views?
Think anyone would play?
I would. That's 1 person.:D
Inflight radar could be limited as it simulates ground controllers and watch stations vectoring A/C to their target. When flying an attack mission in enemy airspace, there should be no Inflight Radar. When inflight, you would get radar updates in only the sectors you are near, simulating a tactical ground control radio transmission..
Auto- takeoff? No problem...never use it.
Auto Trim? Same deal
Fuel tank selection? No problem. Pay attantion to your gauge...thats why it's there.
As for the rest of the stuff...sure, pull it out. We don't need it.
The only 2 points I would take issue with is Autopilot and Snapview.
If I'm not mistaken, did'nt some A/C in WWII have autopilot?
Snap views? So make it so your view scrolls as you change yor view.
I have no problem with any of these concessions.
-
Originally posted by popeye
So, I guess there'd be no inflight radar, auto takeoff, auto trim, auto fuel tank selector, autopilot, auto retracting flaps, auto prop feathering, auto engine temp monitor, ammo counters, runway spawns, or "snap" views?
In flight dar is a concession we have to put up with cos we dont have anyone willing to play ground control for an 8 hour shift.
Auto take off, trim, fuel selection, autopilot, snap views.......none of these have any effect on how someone flies whatsoever. Only newbies use auto takeoff, combat trim is not exactly the most perfect trimming system and manual trimming is often more accurate, auto fuel selection just saves us hitting SHIFT F every so often (hardly a big issue), autopilot simply means we can step away from the PC for calls of nature (again, hardly a big issue), snap views (well actually I never use em, always used pan view) are again a concession cos we dont have 360 degree monitors yet.
Auto retracting flaps, yup get rid of it....lets have flap damage for numpties who leave em down too long (and gear).
Auto prop feathering, again get rid of it, we're all quite capable of feathering manually.
Auto engine temp monitor, READ MY ORIGINAL POST.
Ammo counters, well I'd give em up on planes that didnt have em.
Runway spawns, READ MUCKMAWs POST.
Anyway, none of the above is particularly important......I still feel the engine overheating issue would be the most gameplay impacting change.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/626629.jpg)
-
Engine overheat. - Yep.
Random failure? huh? that's just annoying.
Gun jams - no, 99% of gamers of AH won't like it.
Fog. - dunno. but more dynamic weather would be nice.
-
I'm all for it.
I asked HT at the con if there was going to be a 50% chance of having the Me163 just up and explode, and he commented that he "HATES that stuff", so I suspect we're not going to get failures modeled.
Still, it'd be fun. Guns tended to jam if you yank and bank them too much, engines would overheat; all kinds of bad things. By modeling this (and ground control) it would be more like flying.
Ground control would be tough...what if two people spawned in the hanger at the same time? We'd almost need no collisions around controlled airspace.
-
"Anyway, none of the above is particularly important......I still feel the engine overheating issue would be the most gameplay impacting change."
I guess that's what makes it "ultra" realism? :)
-
Maybe HTC could add a chance of under carriage damage, where the damage amount is proportional to speed, when one crosses over a bomb crater.
This next bit will sound silly but I'm serious. What I think would be neat if this were added would be to also add a bulldozer to the vehicle selection. Then, so long as a dozer is in contact with a crater, the craters repair time is sped up. Award a vehicle perk per crater repaired and a whole new way to earn perkies for that Tiger opens up.
As to MG jams, can't say as I am much in favor of attempting to add a random chance based on historical numbers. The reason is simple, I suspect that there is very little in the way of hard numbers to reference on frequency of problems.
I am however in favor of adding gun overheating to the game.
Last random thought on the subject, if mechanical breakdowns were to be implemented in the game, how would people feel about being able to spend perk points to reduce the chance? This would represent the WWIish notion of better pilots getting to have personal mechanics.
-
Bulldozers for craters....never thought of that. Interesting idea. First sim to include the Seabees.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
And with the large influx from AW I don't expect HiTech or Pyro will introduce anything that would upset those subscribers.
Good luck just the same
Oed
yo Oedipopsicle u wanna piss us of eh ? :D
-
Engine overheat was one of the most immersive features of EAW...I miss it.
Same with auto-retract flaps and non ammo counters.
Stalls and spins were more challenging too.
Friendly collisions once your off the runway would be great too.
-
Bulldozers....hmmm. Very intriguing. I think we'd be asking for alot here, but if they wanted to do it, I would be for it.
Would the runway be closed while the Seabees were at work?
As for my friendly A/C collision idea, Collisions would be OFF inside the hangar, or maybe even the Hangar, and 100 feet in all directions around it. This way, you could spawn 20 planes inside the hangar at once, and they would have ample space to seperate themselves as they taxied out. ONce on the taxiway, you need to maintain spacing or risk damaging your plane. I would also make it so that if you hit another friendly plane, only your plane takes damage. (IE Killshooter for collisions. You know there will be at least one idiot running around in a tank crashing into planes on purpose.)
-
I would also make it so that if you hit another friendly plane, only your plane takes damage.
How would you deterine who hit who? Was at fault, the guy on final or the guy that turned onto the active?
I've also had conversations with fellows of who have been near me chasing the same con and, when planes are very close, it is not obvious who is ahead of who due to lag.
I'm not sure that unless the aircraft positions are "real time" friendly collisions won't cause more pain than immersion.
-
Im still hoping for crater damage. Its frustrating to see planes and GV rll through a 4000 pound bomb crater and no damage for drving into what would an olympic sized swimming pool
These airplanes rolled from grass for a reason...cratered fields.
Just thinking out loud...just like to see reasonable ground hazzards. Twigs kill tanks, but a big hole in the earth doesnt. Hmmm
-
Originally posted by HFMudd
How would you deterine who hit who? Was at fault, the guy on final or the guy that turned onto the active?
I've also had conversations with fellows of who have been near me chasing the same con and, when planes are very close, it is not obvious who is ahead of who due to lag.
I'm not sure that unless the aircraft positions are "real time" friendly collisions won't cause more pain than immersion.
Well, my take would be similar to that of an auto accident. If plane A's nose hits the front 50% of plane B, I would say Plane B is at fault as PLane A did not have time to avoid the collision. If plane A hit the back 50% of plane B, plane A is at fault, as he had time to react and avoid. If the planes have a head on....well that's tricky. Any suggestions?
No matter how it's modeled, there are going to be situations where the person who caused the accident will cleared and the hapless victim will be blamed for it. The objective is to minimize these situations.
As for A/C lag, I would guess we would just have to be careful to maintain plenty of spacing on the Taxi ways.
We shoudl definitley try having friendly collisions on while airborne, to start. If this tests well, we move the bar up.
-
There is no "who is ahead of whom." There is only your FE. That sounds like some sort of mantra -- picture Obi Wan saying it: “Luke, there is only your FE.”
I could get into an Platonic discussion of perception: "seemings" versus actuality, but I'll avoid it. :) Suffice it to say that what you see if your own reality, and what the other bloke sees is his. The "actuality" is this sort of ethereal force that both rely on for their own rendering of it, but which neither of which can completely grasp in its entirety. Working in your own reality is enough to get by. ;)
I'd actually like to see active runways, where there has to be some basic kind of discipline in taking off and landing. It's easily done if the players want it. Implementing it via the killshooter method would stop the griefers. It would stop direct landings from any quarter that are highly unrealistic, and create a need for a self-regulated circuit system to add that much more nail-biting tension to take-offs and landings that are otherwise way too humdrum. Ever notice how much more panicked you are during a take-off roll when you're in a scenario that only has one life to use, and how you're praying not to screw up the flare on touchdown? If you see a guy acting crazy down there, you don’t land, just like you wouldn’t in real life. :) You don’t need a control tower if everyone basically appreciates the circuit. You can also do things like create parallel runways. Honestly, I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve had a plane fly “through” me in the air during combat; while it happens a lot more on the runway, it’s still not that much, and nothing destroys my sense of immersion more than landing or taking off through another plane.
Even spawning on top of one another could be addressed by creating multiple spawn points that can only be used once they're cleared (and a player booted back to the tower if they don't taxi off it within 3 seconds or something).
It's all about immersion, which is the reason we play these games. We don’t actually think we’re flying, but it sure is fun to get a glimpse of what we think it must feel like.
This sort of stuff wouldn't be appropriate in the MA, but would create a very vocal group of supporters in other arenas that would generate a lot of positive word of mouth for AH. I've always felt the trick is to make something realistic from the start, and then "turn off" parts to make it more accessible to other consumers, rather than starting off with a "dumbed down" version. I know there's a real cost to that in development time, though.
If you can get the hardcore grognards singing a product's praises, you can then easily tailor it to suit different people's wants in terms of realism all the way from physics, to icons, to historical match ups. Different arenas, after all, are about different player desires.
Cheers,
phaetn
-
Most of all, disable AWACS/GPS (map) and the HUD (icons).
Add a G-forces HUD though (we're not able to feel them, so we should be able to see them without looking at a gauge somewhere down in the cockpit).
-
This next bit will sound silly but I'm serious. What I think would be neat if this were added would be to also add a bulldozer to the vehicle selection. Then, so long as a dozer is in contact with a crater, the craters repair time is sped up. Award a vehicle perk per crater repaired and a whole new way to earn perkies for that Tiger opens up.
Make it simpler. A bulldozer is a functionally unarmored tracked vehicle (you could count the dozer blade as armor; it was used that way during the war) with a really poor high-end speed (i.e., like being stuck in 1st in a Panzer), but it erases the graphic for a crater in a swath equal to the width of the vehicle as it drives over it. So rather than just driving up and parking on a crater, you'd have to do some back and fill work to drive over all the crater and plane it back smooth.
The damage that gets done to a plane's undercarriage should also depend on what part of the crater it rolls across. Just rolling along the outer edge won't be much of a risk, but rolling into the center would be.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
Most of all, disable AWACS/GPS (map) and the HUD (icons).
Add a G-forces HUD though (we're not able to feel them, so we should be able to see them without looking at a gauge somewhere down in the cockpit).
The Awacs radar in plane simulates aircraft being vectored to target my ground controllers. It really should only cover the general area you are flying.
When your on the ground, you should have access to the entire war picture as we do now. I would not eliminate the radar in flight, but I would temper it a little.
As for the icons, we simply need them for aicraft identification. Ask WWII historians at what range a pilot can ID an Aircrafts origin, and use that. The ask him at what range a pilot could generaly tell the A/C type.
So lets use 4000 yards and 2000 yards respectively for this example.
Beyond 6K you see nothing. At 6K you see a dot at your 12, level. As you approach, at 4K, you get an icon telling you country of origin (Bish, Rook, knight). At 2K you get the rest of the icon telling you the plane type.
There's just no way a 2D flat monitor with a limited number of pixels can replace what real pilot could actually see, so I do agree we can limit the icons, but absolutley not eliminate them all together.
-
"Just add 1:1 fuel consumtion and 1:1 mapscale, and it would be perfect."
That is a very bad idea. Remember that the upcomming Mission arena is going to be 8th airforce/ETO.....then remember that these guys were flying multi-hour flights. The poor B-17 drivers would have to stay at AH for 8-10 hours straight or so! Even the P-47 guys would be flying around for 3-4 hours at a time--NOT a good situation if the mission arena is expected to survive (especially how considering that of those 4 hours, 3 would be spent flying through empty air with nothing to do).
As for things like engine overheat...I wonder how many people clamoring for overheating actually realize how long it would take for these planes to overheat, especially at combat altitude. If modeled realistically, this would have little effect except to give players more or less unlimited WEP time.
WEP use and combat restrictions were based more upon engine manintence intervals and range/fuel use considerations. While maintenence is not a concern in AH, fuel use definately is and my guess is the Allied pilots especially will have to limit their combat time or run out of gas on the way home.
Of course, it could be modeled UNrealistically where engines would heat up and stop working in a stupidly short amount of time, but what would be the point of adding something like THAT? Yep, for the sole purpose of making the game more difficult (often confused with realism)....which is silly.
J_A_B
-
"Ask WWII historians at what range a pilot can ID an Aircrafts origin, and use that."
Why just not read their autobiographies?
Yeager tells about being able to spot enemy formations on a clear day at a distance of around 50 MILES. He is not the only one who reports having been able to make out formations of planes at distances at well over 20 miles. 6000 yards? My god man, you have a blind guy in the cockpit! With vision that bad you couldn't even get a DRIVER's license, much less get to fly a fighter plane!
Individual types could be made out at distances that would surprise you. Remember that in any particular theater, pilots generally only had relatively small number of fighters to have to tell apart, unlike in the MA where we have dozens of models. Being able to tell apart different models of planes at most angles at 5000-6000 yards is easily within a trained person's capabilities (head and tail-on identification is tougher). An untrained observer on the ground can tell apart B-17's from B-24's when they're flying at 25000+ feet, which is about 5 miles (8000+ yards)!
A lot of people, who have never done this sort of thing, badly under-estimate what the human eye is capable of.
J_A_B
-
"And with the large influx from AW I don't expect HiTech or Pyro will introduce anything that would upset those subscribers. "
I resent that remark. Being an AW vet myself, I'd welcome some more realism in the MA. I was one of the many in AW who was salivating at the prospects of more realistic modeling when the plug got pulled.
-
Originally posted by slimm50
I resent that remark. Being an AW vet myself, I'd welcome some more realism in the MA. I was one of the many in AW who was salivating at the prospects of more realistic modeling when the plug got pulled.
I remeber when Over-Rev would turn on. God you never heard such cries of pain :)
-
I don't seem much point in wagging fingers at former AW players and laying blame for current MA settings on their presence. They're not AW players now, they're AH players, and as such are vital members of this community. I know lots of flight sim developers who would love to have their company, and HTC was lucky to get them.
Remember, no matter what flight sim one plays, we're all much more alike than different, and quibble over distinctions that no outsider could even begin to appreciate. ;)
I'm all for a more realistic arena, too, of course. It needs to be demonstrated to HTC, however, that it would be sustainable and worthwhile their effort. Looking at the numbers at this moment (246 MA; 5 CT) it would hardly seem like we have the courage of our convictions, no? That said, there is a market for more realistic gameplay, it's just a question of tapping it.
What I'd really like to see is readily adjustable server settings that could be player controlled (not individually, but by an appointed player/community member) and really experimented with to see what draws a crowd. Basically able to toggle next to everything, including trying things like friendly collisions, just to see how players manage it.
Cheers,
phaetn
-
Swoop....
I like all of the ideas if the arena were to be campaign based.
If it stays individual mission based, random items that prevent you from even attempting to complete the mission should be minimized. Nothing worse than gearing up on a Friday to fly that one mission before spending quality time with the family, only to have that time arrive way too early due to a failure.
AKDejaVu
-
Agree with you on all counts, Oedipus! Careful with Jocasta's pins or you'll put your eye out. ;)
Cheers,
phaethon
-
ROFL! Holy crap I nearly pissed myself! I especially like:
Antigone, we're both doomed.
I left a lonely old man out of luck,
With no eyes to see cause I poked em out,
But I knew there was more to come.
Catchy tune, that one!
I poked 'em out, I poked 'em out. he he he
Cheers,
phaetn
-
I don't know, I happen to think the AW'ers have much better ideas than most of the not quite so new people that came along not very long before them.
-
Engine overheat? Well, I was reading a report about a test-bed endurance run on an aero-engine (think it may have been a P-47). It ran for DAYS at 100% throttle with no damage. I really think engine overheat is over-played - if it was a huge factor, the question is how much should it be factored in. I think they avoided 100% throttle for long-term engine life issues - it had nothing to do with reliability in-sortie.
Weapon jams? Hmm... that could really drive people away.
Fog? I'm all for more weather effects.
Removal of combat-trim etc? Absolutely not - maybe it's just me, but I don't have access to analogue rotary dials of any kind. Trimming the plane using keys would be a complete pain in the arse.
The thing I most want is a graduated damage model - i.e. there are degrees of say, aileron damage - not all or nothing.
I'd also like the windscreen to get covered in oil or dirt when you fly too close to burning aicraft. Now that would be cool. :)
-
Dowd, I read an AAR from a US pilot in a P47 who got chased outta France by a 190 pilot who couldnt shoot for toejam. Chase went on for 20 minutes and when the 190 finally ran outta ammo and peeled off the P47 pilot "eased his engine down and back out of the red".
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
Indeed.
And if you don't think heat was an issue, why do you think there were adjustable cowl flaps, etc. and ram air was so important? Planes would overheat in a manner of minutes sitting on the runway if they didn't get decent airflow.
Considerations for cooling air and locations of rads to manage engine temp very much affected the development of planes. Consider the cool air intakes of the P-51 versus the Spitfire and how the two approaches had such a vast impact on performace even with versions that had the same powerplant. The Spit took a huge hit on drag with its mammoth box under the wing, affecting both airspeed and fuel consumption, while the P-51 had an exceptionally clean system created after much experimentation as to its position (and cooled better, to boot).
As it is, I'm not sure how much of a place engine overheat has in AH. There is an engine temp system now, and it affects how much WEP you can use (effectively an overheating issue). What we don't get are premature detonation, misfires, and engines siezing for being pushed too hard (and a crew chief to bark at us when we get home). ;)
I think engine damage from overheating (not combat damage induced) is too over the top for the MA. It might have a place in long scenarios, though, where a single sortie can last the whole event.
Cheers,
phaetn
-
Engine overheat? Well, I was reading a report about a test-bed endurance run on an aero-engine (think it may have been a P-47). It ran for DAYS at 100% throttle with no damage.
It's another blind attempt to make a case for a feature excluded from AH. Please.
-
If they don't change the actual "lasergunnery" the realism is only a dream!!!!
Gunnery is worst thing in this game!
Hom many kills made from more than 200 have you read about on WW2 books? A few.
How many kills have you made from 200+ playing AH? Almost All.
Ciao
Lucchini
-
"It's another blind attempt to make a case for a feature excluded from AH. Please."
Well then enlighten us, your lordship :rolleyes:
What do YOU think? How would YOU do it?
There are two facts about WW2 engines and AH that you can either live with or ignore.
1. Engine temperature in a real plane is a whole lot more complicated than engine temp management in AH. At 20K a plane like an Me-109 could run all day at power settings that would cause the engine to rapidly overheat while sitting on the taxiway. In AH engine temperature seems the same regardless of speed and altitude, and we certainly don't need to worry about "roadkill realism" like radiator flaps and such. Such "features" do much to increase the tedium of playing a game while adding absolutely nothing to the meat of the game (the combat).
2. Once airborne, most of these planes could run pretty much all day at full throttle and the engine wouldn't normally quit--and if it did quit, it was most likely because something was messed up with the engine beforehand. They'd definately run a whole lot longer than the typical flight in the MA. Heck, even at WEP settings planes like Thunderbolts and Mustangs would take quite a long time to overheat (a lot more than the pitiful 5 minutes we're limited to in AH, that's for sure).
So tell me, what do YOU think? Do you want realistic engine management, which would have little practical effect upon AH except to increase tedium for absolutely no benefit? Or do you want some stupid artificial system that would satisfy the "difficult must be realism" crowd while not actually being realistic at all?
J_A_B
-
Hell, I don't care. I don't play anymore, but i dig the titles you give me.
"Sir Lord D. Sanchez" has a lofty ring too it. Could you call me that from now on and i'll explain test cell vs. cowling on aircraft engine applications before Funky shows up with his car he can barley fit in w/ turbo charger cooling theory posts?
Thanks.
-
Creamo, yah fat bastige. Whaddya mean, you don't play anymore? Can't you get your belly behind the controls? Caaaamawn matey. Get some Stolichnaya or Absolut or Finlandia, or my favourite - Cracovia, mix in your mixer of choice, and get your fat arse back in the skies. Rest your belly in the pencil drawer - works for me.
-
Almost all of the realism aspects called for in this thread have already been done as much as 10 or more years ago, including engine overheat, gun jams, friendly collisions, and crater damage to runways. The only ones I can't remember in an online sim were fog (which is no doubt due to limitations of graphic hardware of the time) and random failure.
So when you say that the new people from Air Warrior might not like these aspects, you are probably right, because they didn't like them years and years ago in Air Warrior either.
-
I love these ideas, im all for 100% realism,,.. or allmost 100%.. I would like to keep auto pilot though, so u can take a bathroom break at least! :)
Gun Jams would be great, the bigger the gun the less reliable, so it would give u a little bit of an advantage (or at least less of a disadvantage) to use .303's in planes like a6m over using 20mms all the time.
And yes Definitly Engine over heating!!
Instead of having no collision in hangars, just make it so the planes appear behind each other, very simple to do, I could code that "if object#XZ = SpawnXZ then inc SpawnXZ,#" or somethin like that :)
And add a "Reup time" feature, where if you die after so long (say 3 mins in flight, that way u cant accidently die and have to wait 15mins to reup) then u cant reup for so long..
-
The more realistic the better.:)
-
Originally posted by popeye
So, I guess there'd be no inflight radar, auto takeoff, auto trim, auto fuel tank selector, autopilot, auto retracting flaps, auto prop feathering, auto engine temp monitor, ammo counters, runway spawns, or "snap" views?
Think anyone would play?
Sure
-
I can not think of one WWII engine that would overheat in 15 minutes of full throttle at any alt . The russians routinely ran at full throttle the entire time. WWII aircraft engines carried from 10 to 30 or more GALLONS of oil and were dry sump systems. We allready have a concession to the roulette wheel crowd by letting the engines overheat at altitude on wep.
Gun jams? even the worst.. the first 51b's and all LW planes with electric primers... were not too bad. The 51b was solved with a tiny little feed motor from a B17... latter 51's were fine. LW planes were allways problematic burt not too bad... 1 in 1-2000 rounds per jam... U.S. fifties were one jam in every 3000 rounds. That means.... about every sortie and a half you might get one gun of the six to jam.
random failures? Maybe but why random? shouldn't jap planes have about 10 times the failure rate for later war planes than say U.S.? How many niks or ki84's even managed to take off or finish a sortie? Spitfires foulded plugs. russian planes threw rods. If you do it do it right... when you get in a la or nik... you are taking a chance. If you play with the throttle in a spit or 51 you will fowl the plugs.
You guys don't want realism.... you want a roulette wheel. you want to bring indian bingo to AH.
lazs
-
how bout this...
let us throttle up 150%.
That would fix this whole thing.
THat is infact what pilots would do. They knew the rated boost and rpms a plane could take and they would push it. That is why you hear remarks like "the p40s engine started shaking and blah blah blah as I dived away from the zero with my throttle planted" They were intentionally pushing the boost and temp beyond the limitations the plane was supposed to have (ground crew induced I suppose). Yet, they had the option. Just give us the option. That way military power becomes what it was, the highest manifold pressure you could run your plane at without sure failure (100%). Doesnt mean the pilot couldnt put the throttle a little further forward....
-
Right... so every type of aircraft has it's own characteristics WRT engine overheat, gun jam, etc.
Go ahead... model all of this stuff.
I can already hear the next big whine, "HTC, where are the new aircraft?"
-
sandman... I agree... what we have works the best but if people insist on some kind of roulette wheel realism then don't be calling it realism. call it .... I don't know... random arena indian bingo arena.
lazs
in response to beetles sig..
funked said in response to the terror squirrle attack in england that was only stopped by a grandfather with an illegal air rifle... "Wow if they had a rabid racoon I bet they'd have to call in NATO to bring over a .22 or something."
-
Would love t see all that stuff
Blitz
-
Not a thing wrong with your suggestions, IMO. And I agree that the whines would increase exponentially. What you suggest can work if other things were to be activated eg. ability to manipulate engine rpms so that it accurately affects fuel consumption.
Gun jams, weak landing gear etc would affect some of the more popular a/c flown in the game eg. Tiffie, Nik2; FM2 etc.
>>random failures? Maybe but why random? shouldn't jap planes have about 10 times the failure rate for later war planes than say U.S.? How many niks or ki84's even managed to take off or finish a sortie? Spitfires foulded plugs. russian planes threw rods. If you do it do it right... when you get in a la or nik... you are taking a chance. If you play with the throttle in a spit or 51 you will fowl the plugs. <<
But as Laz2 points out above, historical accuracy will have to count for a lot, if "ultra realism" is to be modeled.
-
Guns are not the problem. It’s just that america has more idiots per 100,000 people than any country in Europe (don’t believe me? Watch UPN, FOX news, or the WB for 2 minutes, or even better prime time broadcasting). It just happens that the less intelligent a person is, the more import is place on being able to blast small furry or feathered animals. I personally enjoy the history and engineering of weapons, but defending my right to keep my 22 and 410 (which have about 3 inches of dust on em) to kill defenseless little animals is lame.
The right to own firearms in the US is purely a left over from a fear of the government no longer behaving 'for' the people and 'by' the people. Back then (early 1800s) a person could own a weapon that could match anything (besides a cannon or a warship) the government could produce. That is no longer possible, and although Red Dawn was a great movie and really inspirational to all the .22 toting teenage paramilitants, it is not feasible to protect yourself from an overzealous government without growing a beard, living in caves, and moving to Afghanistan.
As far as the game is concerned, any new additions that confound peoples arcade ability in flight should be optional and in the CT or the mission arena. They should be there though.
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
Guns are not the problem. It’s just that america has more idiots per 100,000 people than any country in Europe (don’t believe me? Watch UPN, FOX news, or the WB for 2 minutes, or even better prime time broadcasting). It just happens that the less intelligent a person is, the more import is place on being able to blast small furry or feathered animals. I personally enjoy the history and engineering of weapons, but defending my right to keep my 22 and 410 (which have about 3 inches of dust on em) to kill defenseless little animals is lame.
The right to own firearms in the US is purely a left over from a fear of the government no longer behaving 'for' the people and 'by' the people. Back then (early 1800s) a person could own a weapon that could match anything (besides a cannon or a warship) the government could produce. That is no longer possible, and although Red Dawn was a great movie and really inspirational to all the .22 toting teenage paramilitants, it is not feasible to protect yourself from an overzealous government without growing a beard, living in caves, and moving to Afghanistan.
As far as the game is concerned, any new additions that confound peoples arcade ability in flight should be optional and in the CT or the mission arena. They should be there though.
Somebody move the O'Club?
-
Originally posted by ergRTC
The right to own firearms in the US is purely a left over from a fear of the government no longer behaving 'for' the people and 'by' the people.
Read these stories (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1772) of idiots defending their homes.
-
Hello ?????
Wrong thread
-
hehe, sorry.
-
Why is everyone calling it a "Roullete wheel" its NOT RANDOM. We are talking about actuel reasons for things failing or jamming..
If you dont do anything that might make your guns jam they wont.
If you dont run the engine and 100+ throttle then it wont fail.
etc. etc.
Everything happens for a reason, so just model it that way...
This will of course be OPTIONAL, that way if ppl dont like certain things they can be turned off.
Gun / Engine overheat models i think should start off simple, like all engines of a certain type (example hurri' and spit engine) would have the same failure model. same with guns, but may want to make all of the same caliber the same, unless a certain typ of gun was known to be very very reliable or unreliable, then just model that one a little different.. this way HTC wont have to code too much extra, so it wont take much longer to develop planes.
-
what's the matter erg... can't find the o club or.... just afraid?
lazs
-
still trying to pull the hook out...
hold on a sec..;)