Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Saxman on December 04, 2019, 09:56:58 PM
-
Here's another few more thoughts to inject some life and variety into the game:
Currently, the only thing really differentiating one aircraft from another is the raw performance data. Top speed, climb, acceleration, stall behavior, guns, etc. Other than that, operationally all of the aircraft are more or less the same. They all have the same subsystems and controls. Fuel management, flaps, trim, prop speed, etc. are all the same. On the one hand, sure, it makes it easier to hop from plane to plane. But you lose some of the aircraft's unique character.
For example: The Wildcats all had manually-operated gear, with a crank that required being turned 29 times to raise and lower the gear. In AH, it's done with the push of a button. While that may seem like a minor thing, other aircraft had more significant features.
Case in point: The N1K2-J had automatic combat flaps. The F4U and F6F had "blow up" flaps; rather than being locked in place, the flaps on the Corsair and Hellcat were controlled by a spring. The first two notches would automatically "blow up" if deployed above a certain airspeed, but then would drop again once the aircraft was below the speed again. And of course, there's the lead-computing sight used on later Mustangs.
So here's a comprehensive suggestion for remodeling of aircraft systems:
1) Implement complex engine management, in the following manner:
1a) Make this an "Opt-In" setting, like Stall Limiter and Engine Governor. If CEM is enabled, players have direct control over fuel mixture, propeller pitch, and cowl, radiator, and oil cooler flap positions, and supercharger speed. Players that leave CEM off can fly like they always have, but as with the Stall Limiter and Engine Governor, it prevents them from pushing the envelope. Players using CEM may be able to squeeze a few extra HP out of their engine by tweaking the mixture, or add a few feet per minute to their rate of climb by adjusting their propeller pitch, or eke out a few mph by closing their cowl flaps, or get an extra few miles of range with the right settings. All of this would come at the risk of over-revving the propeller, or overheating the engine (oh yeah, add engine overheats. Although the implementation should be less heavy-handed than in Il-2).
1b) Model management per aircraft. IE the Corsairs had four settings: Idle/Cutoff, Auto Lean, Auto Rich, and Emergency Rich (technically only three, because the latter was permanently disabled) so would not have fully manual mixture. While German aircraft would have their automatic propeller pitch (this would need to be distinguished in some manner from disabling CEM).
2) Combined with the above, consider remodeling WEP management, as not all aircraft had it as it's currently presented. IE, the Corsairs simply increased the throttle beyond a stop above 100% to engage water injection.
3) Implement some of the unique aircraft features. Rather than a "Gear Up/Down," have a "crank" key for the Wildcat's landing gear that needs to be pressed so many times. Add automatic flaps on the N1K2, allow the F4U and F6F to "set and forget" up two notches of flaps. Implement the K-19 LCOS, perhaps as a Perk option for the P-51D and other late-war aircraft that carried them.
3a) Perhaps include some common field mods not otherwise represented as another perk option.
4) Remove ammunition counters for planes that didn't have them (which was pretty much anything but the Germans, IIRC).
5) Remove trim axes from aircraft that didn't have them (IIRC, some aircraft didn't have trim for every control axis)
6) Oh, and add clickable Virtual Cockpits. Not completely relevant to this, but it would be cool, and would help VR guys flailing about for the keyboard because they forgot to map one particular function they suddenly need. :-P
-
think it's been said before, why push buttons just for the sake of pushing buttons. we arent flying real planes, it's model after real planes. if I have to press a button 25 times to get the gear up or down, what does it do for me other than giving me carpel tunnel syndrome which I already have.
I have a keyboard that can be programmed, but gave it up after having the bail out function too close to the raise gear.
semp
-
Yeah, I vote thumbs down. If I wanted full-realism with the PITA of engine management and all that stuff I'd go to DCS.
A keyboard is a poor substitute for actual controls. The automation of things in here is a way to bridge that gap. I say leave it alone.
-
Counterpoint: War Thunder HAS those systems, and it’s literally killing AH in terms of player numbers. So clearly that isn’t nearly the barrier you’re making it out to be.
-
Counterpoint: War Thunder HAS those systems, and it’s literally killing AH in terms of player numbers. So clearly that isn’t nearly the barrier you’re making it out to be.
WT isn't popular because it has all that junk. And yes, it's a barrier, whether you like to admit it or not. I have no interest in it and I'm not alone. A keyboard is not a throttle quadrant or cockpit panel. AH recognizes that and automates those functions that are not readily accessible with a keyboard.
This is AH, it's not WT. Different game. Different model. If you want manual management then fine, but you shouldn't get a bonus for it. You get the same performance as the rest of us. Then you can choose your realism as you see fit.
AH is a good balance. Leave it alone or allow it as an opt-in that doesn't change performance.
-
Then remove Stall Limiter, Combat Trim, all autopilot modes, and the Engine Governor. All optional settings that make it easier to manage the aircraft and fly, but you gain more benefit from turning them off.
Saying players using manual engine management shouldn’t get some sort of bonus for doing so at the expense of more manual oversight/risk when the game ALREADY has functions that do just that is INCREDIBLY arbitrary and bordering on hypocritical.
-
Then remove Stall Limiter, Combat Trim, all autopilot modes, and the Engine Governor. All optional settings that make it easier to manage the aircraft and fly, but you gain more benefit from turning them off.
Isn't this a good system to have, though? It is helpful for those who don't want the realism, but beneficial to turn them off for the more experienced pilots.
-
Then remove Stall Limiter, Combat Trim, all autopilot modes, and the Engine Governor. All optional settings that make it easier to manage the aircraft and fly, but you gain more benefit from turning them off.
Saying players using manual engine management shouldn’t get some sort of bonus for doing so at the expense of more manual oversight/risk when the game ALREADY has functions that do just that is INCREDIBLY arbitrary and bordering on hypocritical.
I don't care. This is not a sim. It's hard enough to play as it is without giving an ADDITIONAL edge to people who may have an advantage in equipment, physical ability (some guys here are disabled you know), etc. If you want to grind for advantage go to WT.
The game has a very limited number of automated features like the stall limiter that reduce performance. That's the key. LIMITED.
Hitech has struck the right balance. Leave it alone. You push the game toward this full-realism-equals-advantage and you'll lose a lot of folks to games that already do that--and may actually do it better.
-
I don't care.
Well, if you're so adamantly against even an objective discussion on how it could be implemented, then shove off my Wish List. Especially if you're going to start throwing out strawman BS about grinding which I didn't say WORD ONE about implementing.
-
"Find the fun stuff, and then throw everything else out." Sid Meier
This is a game that is supposed to entertain, not a commercial or military trainer. Just because something could be modeled, doesn't mean it has to be modeled. There is an unlimited amount of chicken-shite that COULD be modeled that would add no fun and just get in the way.
The question is, would radiator cowling flap twiddling be the fun part of being a fighter pilot? Does that get their palms sweaty? Do people daydream at work about getting home and twiddling some cowling flaps?
Maybe for some people, probably not for most.
If you could make it so people who aren't interested in aircraft accounting would still have the model and feel they have now, and add it so that those who want to twiddle radiator cowling flaps get maybe 1 mph bonus, then I'm ok with that. Just don't add it and start punishing everyone who doesn't want to get that anal and change the model feel of what they already have. So lean toward very minor bonus, not punishment. Give (very very minor), don't take away.
:salute
-
Counterpoint: War Thunder HAS those systems, and it’s literally killing AH in terms of player numbers. So clearly that isn’t nearly the barrier you’re making it out to be.
War Thunder only has that in simulation mode, which seems to be used by a very small minority of the players. In the other modes, engine control is generally done by the game, and it is more advantageous to use "mouse aim" to control the aircraft than a joystick. It is also free to play.
Mike
-
I don't think it's the way HTC is heading these days. They seem to be going out of their way to try and make things easier, not more complicated. Also with the limited personal they are now working with is this something that you thing would help the game right now?
I'd rather see them make a bunch more tiles that could be used in the maps. Adding ground details could add that "look" some players are looking for to be more realistic. I think the graphics in the game are fine, there are just too few of them. After that a way to update the maps we have quickly to bring in these new tiles. Maybe add a random generator that moves tiles around a bit when the maps are loaded after a win. This would give a freshness to the old maps each time they come up.
The game should e setup so a new guy not knowing anything about flying could be in the air and fighting in 10-15 minutes. Anything that pushes us away from that is a waste of resources, resources HTC doesn't really have these days.
-
"Find the fun stuff, and then throw everything else out." Sid Meier
This is a game that is supposed to entertain, not a commercial or military trainer. Just because something could be modeled, doesn't mean it has to be modeled. There is an unlimited amount of chicken-shite that COULD be modeled that would add no fun and just get in the way.
The question is, would radiator cowling flap twiddling be the fun part of being a fighter pilot? Does that get their palms sweaty? Do people daydream at work about getting home and twiddling some cowling flaps?
Maybe for some people, probably not for most.
If you could make it so people who aren't interested in aircraft accounting would still have the model and feel they have now, and add it so that those who want to twiddle radiator cowling flaps get maybe 1 mph bonus, then I'm ok with that. Just don't add it and start punishing everyone who doesn't want to get that anal and change the model feel of what they already have. So lean toward very minor bonus, not punishment. Give (very very minor), don't take away.
:salute
Where did I say take away anything? What you're describing is exactly the implementation I'm going for: Enough of a bonus to make the risk/reward worthwhile, but not so much that players who don't/can't are unable to compete.
-
Where did I say take away anything? What you're describing is exactly the implementation I'm going for: Enough of a bonus to make the risk/reward worthwhile, but not so much that players who don't/can't are unable to compete.
OK, I thought you talked about making my engine over-heat and seize if I didn't twiddle radiator flaps right. That would be really annoying. If it doesn't inconvenience me or give you a noticeable advantage, then fine.
If you make the difference minor enough that I couldn't tell one way or another flying against you. If I can tell it is giving you a noticeable advantage, then that is the same as punishing those that don't want to be flight sim accountants. So yeah, 1 or 2 ft/s if that floats your boat.
Now whether that is worth touching that much coad is another question. Risk&effort vs reward. I doubt adding radiator flaps would put another 100 players in to the arena.
:salute
-
OK, I thought you talked about making my engine over-heat and seize if I didn't twiddle radiator flaps right. That would be really annoying. If it doesn't inconvenience me or give you a noticeable advantage, then fine.
If you make the difference minor enough that I couldn't tell one way or another flying against you. If I can tell it is giving you a noticeable advantage, then that is the same as punishing those that don't want to be flight sim accountants. So yeah, 1 or 2 ft/s if that floats your boat.
Now whether that is worth touching that much coad is another question. Risk&effort vs reward. I doubt adding radiator flaps would put another 100 players in to the arena.
:salute
I'd question your comment that it wouldn't interest more people. There are a lot of people who fly IL2 and like such as that seem to get seriously stiff nipples over engine management. No icons seems popular too. Those, the graphics, and the DM are the main things I've noticed people compare AH with IL2 unfavorably.
Kinda hard to convince them they're wrong and should like something else.
Wiley.
-
See rule #4
-
OK, I thought you talked about making my engine over-heat and seize if I didn't twiddle radiator flaps right. That would be really annoying. If it doesn't inconvenience me or give you a noticeable advantage, then fine.
If you make the difference minor enough that I couldn't tell one way or another flying against you. If I can tell it is giving you a noticeable advantage, then that is the same as punishing those that don't want to be flight sim accountants. So yeah, 1 or 2 ft/s if that floats your boat.
Now whether that is worth touching that much coad is another question. Risk&effort vs reward. I doubt adding radiator flaps would put another 100 players in to the arena.
:salute
Bingo. And for every player it adds you'll lose ten. People already have a hard enough time with everything being equal.
-
War Thunder only has that in simulation mode, which seems to be used by a very small minority of the players. In the other modes, engine control is generally done by the game, and it is more advantageous to use "mouse aim" to control the aircraft than a joystick. It is also free to play.
Mike
Bingo.
-
Kinda hard to convince them they're wrong and should like something else.
Yeah, well, didn't Targetware stroke itself about all it's complex engine management? Did that help them? where are they now?
If you added radiator flaps you would still not pull over many IL2 players. Mainly because of graphics and because a huge percentage of them only want to play an offline standalone sim. (No, I not saying there are zero IL2 multi-players.)
If you really want to impress me, add a one-death-your-account-is-closed-forever feature. Now THAT would be hardcore realism. ;)
:salute
-
Yeah, well, didn't Targetware stroke itself about all it's complex engine management? Did that help them? where are they now?
If you added radiator flaps you would still not pull over many IL2 players. Mainly because of graphics and because a huge percentage of them only want to play an offline standalone sim. (No, I not saying there are zero IL2 multi-players.)
If you really want to impress me, add a one-death-your-account-is-closed-forever feature. Now THAT would be hardcore realism. ;)
:salute
I'm telling you people. Turning it into a dating sim idle game will rake in the money with minimal development time and save Aces High.
Wiley.
-
I'm telling you people. Turning it into a dating sim idle game will rake in the money with minimal development time and save Aces High.
Wiley.
No, no no! Turn it into a accounting flight sim Excel spreadsheet like Targetware and you don't even have to worry graphics updates!
Just mind that double entry.
;)
-
OK, I thought you talked about making my engine over-heat and seize if I didn't twiddle radiator flaps right. That would be really annoying. If it doesn't inconvenience me or give you a noticeable advantage, then fine.
If you make the difference minor enough that I couldn't tell one way or another flying against you. If I can tell it is giving you a noticeable advantage, then that is the same as punishing those that don't want to be flight sim accountants. So yeah, 1 or 2 ft/s if that floats your boat.
Now whether that is worth touching that much coad is another question. Risk&effort vs reward. I doubt adding radiator flaps would put another 100 players in to the arena.
:salute
This is the implementation I would use:
1) It would be an option like Stall Limiter and Engine Governor.
2) Turned off, things function more or less like normal. The game automatically manages cowl flaps, mixture, etc.
3) Turned on, the player now manages those functions based on the aircraft's capabilities (IE, Corsairs can set fuel to Auto Lean or Auto Rich, but have to manually adjust prop speed, cowl and oil cooler flaps, and change the supercharger speed. Whereas FW-190s don't have to worry about propeller pitch since it's all automatic). Obviously some difference would need to be determined between aircraft with automatic controls, and the game managing it for the player. And one possibility is that aircraft that actually have automatic controls would supersede the "EZ Engine" setting (so fly a 190, and your propeller is managed by the aircraft. Fly a Spitfire and the game's auto controls manage it). Perhaps similar to how combat trim is more general and unable to account for things like flaps than trimming manually; so "EZ Engine" sets everything in a "good enough" range, but the aircraft's automatic settings are more precise.
4) Manual settings (where available) allow squeezing a bit of extra performance out of the aircraft. Maybe 3-5mph if you shut your flaps, or a few extra FPM on your rate of climb by tweaking your propeller pitch, etc.
5) I propose adding engine overheats as part of the risk/reward to manual settings. Players with CEM disabled generally wouldn't need to worry about it (unless they do something silly like WEP from takeoff to landing). But with manual settings, pushing too much (IE prop speed too high, fuel too rich or lean, etc.) or for too long risks burning out the engine (the time, however, should be reasonable. Il-2 seriously overmodels engine overheats) It would be similar to how the Engine Governor already works in WWI: You can leave it on and never have to worry about your engine blowing up from over-revving. However when off you can take the risk for a bit extra performance at high speeds and in dives.
You shove off with your nuisance wishes. (If you don't like feedback don't post on a DISCUSSION board.)
You're not discussing. You hit "Engine Management" and slammed on the brakes and summarily dismissed the entire post. I've seen plenty of people on this board ask for CEM in the past, so it ain't on you to declare what is or is not a "nuisance wish."
You want an advantage because of self-induced difficulty. That's grinding.
(https://nbbumnd0bj-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/you-keep-using-that-word.jpg)
Flying over and over and over again in a low-ENY plane to rack up perk points is grinding. Spending hours wandering around killing Kobolds and Spiders even though you're ten levels above them for easy XP and Gold is grinding.
-
And asking for extra-work nonsense to gain an advantage is grinding. It's the same thing it's simply a matter of how you "earn" it.
No. No. And no.
And, yeah, it's a nuisance wish, because it's gonna annoy a lot of people should Hitech be foolish enough to try it. We have way more crucial needs right now than this stuff--as in just about ANYTHING else.
-
And asking for extra-work nonsense to gain an advantage is grinding. It's the same thing it's simply a matter of how you "earn" it.
No. No. And no.
And, yeah, it's a nuisance wish, because it's gonna annoy a lot of people should Hitech be foolish enough to try it. We have way more crucial needs right now than this stuff--as in just about ANYTHING else.
No, it is NOT. Grinding is repetition of the same simple action over and over and over and over and over to achieve a minor result. "Kill a Kobold. Kill a Kobold. Kill a Kobold. Kill a Kobold. Yay, Level Up." THAT is grinding. "Horde on my Six! Throttle to WEP, cowl and oil cooler flaps closed for minimal drag, propeller pitch to full, dive the hell out of here...crap, is that smoke from the cowl? Just a few more seconds... whew, I lost them. Flaps open, prop at 80%, throttle back. Ok, engine temperature is back to normal." Is not.
Grinding is NOT "any extra bit of work to gain an advantage." The repetition is the operative part, NOT how much work you're actually doing. So if you don't want to do any work you may as well just spend all day vulching fields (which would ACTUALLY be grinding, because now you're repeating a simple action to achieve a minor result).
And there's also going to be plenty of people who ARE interested and DO want it, and will NOT be annoyed. You want to be annoyed? Then DON'T TURN IT ON.
-
No, it is NOT. Grinding is repetition of the same simple action over and over and over and over and over to achieve a minor result. "Kill a Kobold. Kill a Kobold. Kill a Kobold. Kill a Kobold. Yay, Level Up." THAT is grinding. "Horde on my Six! Throttle to WEP, cowl and oil cooler flaps closed for minimal drag, propeller pitch to full, dive the hell out of here...crap, is that smoke from the cowl? Just a few more seconds... whew, I lost them. Flaps open, prop at 80%, throttle back. Ok, engine temperature is back to normal." Is not.
Grinding is NOT "any extra bit of work to gain an advantage." The repetition is the operative part, NOT how much work you're actually doing. So if you don't want to do any work you may as well just spend all day vulching fields (which would ACTUALLY be grinding, because now you're repeating a simple action to achieve a minor result).
And there's also going to be plenty of people who ARE interested and DO want it, and will NOT be annoyed. You want to be annoyed? Then DON'T TURN IT ON.
It's repetitive action to attain an advantage. It's grinding.
If you gain advantage by this kind of silly gimmick you'll lose players.
So, make it optional and completely neutral. That way all the wannabe super hero FPH's can get theirr fix without disrupting the balance we have now. The previous posters have done an excellent job explaining the reasons not to implement this as you want it.
This game has more pressing needs than giving people extra performance via a gimmick. "Plenty of people" will not like it, more than enough to offset those that do.
-
FFS, if you call THAT repetitive wtf do you call throttling your and down or raising and lowering flaps throughout an engagement?
-
If the option were to be added I don't see an issue with it. If a player wants to have that realism in the MA, they can turn the auto-stuff off, as long as the 'auto' stuff is defaulted to 'on'.
-
In a game of inches, even a "minor advantage" still creates a caste system. If there's no difference in the performance between auto and manual, why not just have a box with some levers on it beside your keyboard and pretend you're manipulating those cowling flaps?
But we really shouldn't be stifling Saxman's creativity. Come on people, we need to discuss if it's a good idea, or a really good idea.
Wiley.
-
FFS, if you call THAT repetitive wtf do you call throttling your and down or raising and lowering flaps throughout an engagement?
Normal operation. I don't gain an advantage over and above what others get for it. My flaps don't magically give me two extra knots of stall protection over the other guy because I have selected some dubious manual mode.
-
In a game of inches, even a "minor advantage" still creates a caste system. If there's no difference in the performance between auto and manual, why not just have a box with some levers on it beside your keyboard and pretend you're manipulating those cowling flaps?
But we really shouldn't be stifling Saxman's creativity. Come on people, we need to discuss if it's a good idea, or a really good idea.
Wiley.
It's a terrible idea if it gives an advantage over the current default.
-
If the option were to be added I don't see an issue with it. If a player wants to have that realism in the MA, they can turn the auto-stuff off, as long as the 'auto' stuff is defaulted to 'on'.
So long as the performance parameters remain equal then I see no harm in it. Beyond that it's gonna hurt more than help.
-
Normal operation. I don't gain an advantage over and above what others get for it. My flaps don't magically give me two extra knots of stall protection over the other guy because I have selected some dubious manual mode.
This is the last I have to say to you.
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/picard-facepalm.jpg)
-
In a game of inches, even a "minor advantage" still creates a caste system. If there's no difference in the performance between auto and manual, why not just have a box with some levers on it beside your keyboard and pretend you're manipulating those cowling flaps?
But we really shouldn't be stifling Saxman's creativity. Come on people, we need to discuss if it's a good idea, or a really good idea.
Wiley.
While I think a subtle advantage with manual controls might be balanced by the workload as to not be a real advantage I'd prefer to see HTC work on a more finite damage model. Damage boxes or subsystems that degrade performance rather than the all or nothing type we have to me would make the biggest difference.
Saxman's wish is just as valid as anyone's,if you disagree just say that, no need to attack a player over an idea.Over the years I've seen many good ideas and plenty of bad ideas but each one was as valid as the others.
YMMV!
:salute
-
While I dont have any issues with options to increase manual controls, I think HTCs effort is better put to use in other areas.
I love seeing new maps. Maybe new base or town orientations etc that would vary the gameplay etc
-
While I think a subtle advantage with manual controls might be balanced by the workload as to not be a real advantage I'd prefer to see HTC work on a more finite damage model. Damage boxes or subsystems that degrade performance rather than the all or nothing type we have to me would make the biggest difference.
Saxman's wish is just as valid as anyone's,if you disagree just say that, no need to attack a player over an idea.Over the years I've seen many good ideas and plenty of bad ideas but each one was as valid as the others.
YMMV!
:salute
The thing about adding workload, that can be offset by macros pretty easily. Secondly, as far as engine management, my main question is once you're in a committed fight, why would anybody ever do ANYTHING other than set everything to maximize your performance at the expense of heat? The same as WEP is used now. Unless the overheat time was way, way short all it becomes is "press this button for free performance as you merge. If the other guy is a filthy casual he won't be doing it."
The whole "it would be fair because of workload" argument is either naive or borderline dishonest IMO. YMMV as well. :)
I've been banging the gradual damage model drum pretty near since I got here. The only answer I've seen from HT about it said he didn't like the idea of people trying to hit you early in the fight to degrade your performance for the remainder of the fight. To me that sounds like gameplay but he seems to have made up his mind.
Wiley.
-
I hear you Wiley,I dont want push a button or use a macro to shortcut either,that said it's still a valid wish and I guess my point was more about people poopooing on saxman over it. A simple NO or -1 would do.
As for the degraded performance I was thinking all the lines of more drag/loss of lift from damage to the wing,as it is it;s more like the wing is there until it's not type thing. Maybe some lack of control when the tail section is hit and reduced thrust when prop/engine is hit,of course with the usual oiling of the windscreen.
As I have said YMMV!
:salute
-
I hear you Wiley,I dont want push a button or use a macro to shortcut either,that said it's still a valid wish and I guess my point was more about people poopooing on saxman over it. A simple NO or -1 would do.
As for the degraded performance I was thinking all the lines of more drag/loss of lift from damage to the wing,as it is it;s more like the wing is there until it's not type thing. Maybe some lack of control when the tail section is hit and reduced thrust when prop/engine is hit,of course with the usual oiling of the windscreen.
As I have said YMMV!
:salute
Exactly on the degraded performance. I was really excited about the WWI damage model coming to the WWII part of the game. The info is there, your plane knows how much damage is on each part of the plane it could easily be applied to affect performance/durability, HT just chooses not to use the info in that way. His call, at the end of the day.
Wiley.
-
Exactly on the degraded performance. I was really excited about the WWI damage model coming to the WWII part of the game. The info is there, your plane knows how much damage is on each part of the plane it could easily be applied to affect performance/durability, HT just chooses not to use the info in that way. His call, at the end of the day.
Wiley.
:aok
:salute
-
I hear you Wiley,I dont want push a button or use a macro to shortcut either,that said it's still a valid wish and I guess my point was more about people poopooing on saxman over it. A simple NO or -1 would do.
As for the degraded performance I was thinking all the lines of more drag/loss of lift from damage to the wing,as it is it;s more like the wing is there until it's not type thing. Maybe some lack of control when the tail section is hit and reduced thrust when prop/engine is hit,of course with the usual oiling of the windscreen.
As I have said YMMV!
:salute
Depending on how it's set up it may not be macro-able, especially if different aircraft make use of different settings for optimum performance under different flight modes (although it would largely be a matter of different engines more than individual aircraft). And part of this would also be to model how those aircraft actually manage those settings, so some aircraft may not have the same manual controls, anyway.
Anyway, check out my ammunition thread, as I floated an improved damage model there, as well.
-
Ya I did Sax, personally I think if we had a more finite damage model the ammo could stay as is,not that I wouldnt like to adjust it to suit me,it would be all mine shells..... :devil
Different color tracers might be a cool effect,years ago in another game I used to change the color but IIRC only I could see it on my end,same with skins.
:salute
-
Well, I'd set the tracers by what was used historically for that aircraft/country.
-
Here's another few more thoughts to inject some life and variety into the game:
Currently, the only thing really differentiating one aircraft from another is the raw performance data. Top speed, climb, acceleration, stall behavior, guns, etc. Other than that, operationally all of the aircraft are more or less the same. They all have the same subsystems and controls. Fuel management, flaps, trim, prop speed, etc. are all the same. On the one hand, sure, it makes it easier to hop from plane to plane. But you lose some of the aircraft's unique character.
For example: The Wildcats all had manually-operated gear, with a crank that required being turned 29 times to raise and lower the gear. In AH, it's done with the push of a button. While that may seem like a minor thing, other aircraft had more significant features.
Case in point: The N1K2-J had automatic combat flaps. The F4U and F6F had "blow up" flaps; rather than being locked in place, the flaps on the Corsair and Hellcat were controlled by a spring. The first two notches would automatically "blow up" if deployed above a certain airspeed, but then would drop again once the aircraft was below the speed again. And of course, there's the lead-computing sight used on later Mustangs.
So here's a comprehensive suggestion for remodeling of aircraft systems:
1) Implement complex engine management, in the following manner:
1a) Make this an "Opt-In" setting, like Stall Limiter and Engine Governor. If CEM is enabled, players have direct control over fuel mixture, propeller pitch, and cowl, radiator, and oil cooler flap positions, and supercharger speed. Players that leave CEM off can fly like they always have, but as with the Stall Limiter and Engine Governor, it prevents them from pushing the envelope. Players using CEM may be able to squeeze a few extra HP out of their engine by tweaking the mixture, or add a few feet per minute to their rate of climb by adjusting their propeller pitch, or eke out a few mph by closing their cowl flaps, or get an extra few miles of range with the right settings. All of this would come at the risk of over-revving the propeller, or overheating the engine (oh yeah, add engine overheats. Although the implementation should be less heavy-handed than in Il-2).
1b) Model management per aircraft. IE the Corsairs had four settings: Idle/Cutoff, Auto Lean, Auto Rich, and Emergency Rich (technically only three, because the latter was permanently disabled) so would not have fully manual mixture. While German aircraft would have their automatic propeller pitch (this would need to be distinguished in some manner from disabling CEM).
2) Combined with the above, consider remodeling WEP management, as not all aircraft had it as it's currently presented. IE, the Corsairs simply increased the throttle beyond a stop above 100% to engage water injection.
3) Implement some of the unique aircraft features. Rather than a "Gear Up/Down," have a "crank" key for the Wildcat's landing gear that needs to be pressed so many times. Add automatic flaps on the N1K2, allow the F4U and F6F to "set and forget" up two notches of flaps. Implement the K-19 LCOS, perhaps as a Perk option for the P-51D and other late-war aircraft that carried them.
3a) Perhaps include some common field mods not otherwise represented as another perk option.
4) Remove ammunition counters for planes that didn't have them (which was pretty much anything but the Germans, IIRC).
5) Remove trim axes from aircraft that didn't have them (IIRC, some aircraft didn't have trim for every control axis)
6) Oh, and add clickable Virtual Cockpits. Not completely relevant to this, but it would be cool, and would help VR guys flailing about for the keyboard because they forgot to map one particular function they suddenly need. :-P
sounds like you should play DCS.
-
Counterpoint: War Thunder HAS those systems, and it’s literally killing AH in terms of player numbers. So clearly that isn’t nearly the barrier you’re making it out to be.
counter counterpoint: war thunder is free to play-with the ability to pay for each up grade.
-
Well, I'd set the tracers by what was used historically for that aircraft/country.
:mad: don't mess with my tracers man-I like having the ability to turn them on and off when I want. :devil
-
I agree 100% with Vraciu. :headscratch: o wait hmmm yeah I do.
sounds like you would be happier on DCS or Warthunder, as bad as we need players-I think you should play those.
AH3 has a high enough learning curve as it is, no need to add more problems for new players trying to take when they gotta spend 10 minutes trying to get the engine started.