Damage modeling

[Vinkman]

Elevators and Ailerons, already have a damaged state that adds drag. You're asking for the fixed wing section to add drag and lose lift with each bullet it absorbs?  to do that correctly you'd have to model the damage at the point for the point of impact on the wing. For that you would need a lot more wing objects. not sure it's worth it. 

[Saxman]

Elevators and Ailerons, already have a damaged state that adds drag. You're asking for the fixed wing section to add drag and lose lift with each bullet it absorbs?  to do that correctly you'd have to model the damage at the point for the point of impact on the wing. For that you would need a lot more wing objects. not sure it's worth it. 

The game already calculates lift along multiple points of the wing (more than there are physical sections that can be shot off) so maybe something based around that?

[ReVo]

I would especially like to see an improved damage model for propellers. For example contact with trees or water shouldn't always result in a destroyed prop and engine. I have photos of JG53 Emils which suffered only bent propeller tips from contact with the water on low altitude raids across the English Channel. Likewise Israeli P-51's used their props to cut telephone cables and suffered limited (If any) damage. I would also like to see some kind of damage model for bullets striking propellers.

[Debrody]

I would especially like to see an improved damage model for propellers. For example contact with trees or water shouldn't always result in a destroyed prop and engine. I have photos of JG53 Emils which suffered only bent propeller tips from contact with the water on low altitude raids across the English Channel. Likewise Israeli P-51's used their props to cut telephone cables and suffered limited (If any) damage. I would also like to see some kind of damage model for bullets striking propellers.

The engine damage would be much more important IMO. Idk if the oil leak is all or nothing ot is scaleable - if not, please make it so. The radiator damage modelling is also quite simple for planes with multiple cooling circles (109, later Spits). The radials were known for being very durable. Seen multiple pics about Jugs taking their pilots home with multiple cilinders hit. Is it possible to model this in game with a performance loss?

Contol surfaces: now they are all or nothing. Is it possible to give one hit aileron/rudder/elevator a chance to be jammed in the position it was hit at like the flaps can be jammed?

Flaps: when an extended flap is getting shot off, it effects the flight like it was jammed yet it disappears as it was shot off. Please, fix this.

Making theese stuff to be scaleable would add just as much to the gameplay experience as the new terrain engine. IMO. Others might have other opinions.

[BnZs]

I agree. The three questions are, is it possible, practical, and how much coading would be involved?

The engine damage would be much more important IMO. Idk if the oil leak is all or nothing ot is scaleable - if not, please make it so. The radiator damage modelling is also quite simple for planes with multiple cooling circles (109, later Spits). The radials were known for being very durable. Seen multiple pics about Jugs taking their pilots home with multiple cilinders hit. Is it possible to model this in game with a performance loss?

Contol surfaces: now they are all or nothing. Is it possible to give one hit aileron/rudder/elevator a chance to be jammed in the position it was hit at like the flaps can be jammed?

Flaps: when an extended flap is getting shot off, it effects the flight like it was jammed yet it disappears as it was shot off. Please, fix this.

Making theese stuff to be scaleable would add just as much to the gameplay experience as the new terrain engine. IMO. Others might have other opinions.

[ReVo]

Just copy the damage model from Cliffs of Dover. 

[Wildcatdad]

The game already calculates lift along multiple points of the wing (more than there are physical sections that can be shot off) so maybe something based around that?

Thats what I had thought, though I can see Vink's point. Also, I think the engine and propeler issues would be a great addition.
 

[Debrody]

I agree. The three questions are, is it possible, practical, and how much coading would be involved?

Not too much, i guess.

[XxDaSTaRxx]

I think HTC's damage modeling is a better simulation and less gamey than the little cartoon sketch displaying your damage.
(Image removed from quote.)
A little late to be dispensing chaff XxDaSTaRxx!

I know. I was just throwing that image in there, making fun of the thread in a way. The damage modeling is good as it is now...


Blimey I really thought chaff would work! 

[The Fugitive]

It is unlikely that any of these additions would be added. Not because of coding issues, but because this is a game not a simulator.  When the effect you add take away from the fum a regular PAYING customer has then you start losing those customers.

[Wiley]

It is unlikely that any of these additions would be added. Not because of coding issues, but because this is a game not a simulator.  When the effect you add take away from the fum a regular PAYING customer has then you start losing those customers.

How would a more detailed DM diminish fun?  I would really enjoy a gradual DM versus the all-or-nothing we have now.

Wiley.

[Saxman]

It is unlikely that any of these additions would be added. Not because of coding issues, but because this is a game not a simulator.  When the effect you add take away from the fum a regular PAYING customer has then you start losing those customers.

Like I said somewhere around here, what's the difference between having your elevator cable cut by a snapshot and taking a PW from a max-range ack hit? Or a single BB that holes your engine or fuel tank, or jams one of your flaps? You don't think any of those are incredibly frustrating and un-fun?

If we're going to omit EVERY frustrating way to have your plane crippled at the outset of a fight we may as well not have guns at all.

[Sunka]

Like I said somewhere around here, what's the difference between having your elevator cable cut by a snapshot and taking a PW from a max-range ack hit? Or a single BB that holes your engine or fuel tank, or jams one of your flaps? You don't think any of those are incredibly frustrating and un-fun?

If we're going to omit EVERY frustrating way to have your plane crippled at the outset of a fight we may as well not have guns at all.

THIS!
lots of little cables and parts should be able to get hit,keeping a flap stuck up or a rudder flapping in the wind cause the cable broke.
The only limited ways are planes are damaged is pretty lame and could be much more up to date.

 

[Vinkman]

THIS!
lots of little cables and parts should be able to get hit,keeping a flap stuck up or a rudder flapping in the wind cause the cable broke.
The only limited ways are planes are damaged is pretty lame and could be much more up to date.

 

I think there needs to be some understanding of the failure modes being modeled, and whether or not they are achievable through shooter effort, or if they are random. In your example above, hitting cable will cause a flap to get stuck. But flaps already get stuck. If you are hoping the damage model will include internals depicting the cables so that flaps will get stuck only when cables get hit, then I propose that would only be worth it if an attacker could effectively aim for a cable with a reasonable probability of hitting it. Otherwise making the cable damage random is effectively the same thing.

So you'd need to break this down into two lists:
1) what failure modes are missing from the current modeling
2) would require discrete affectation or random?

[Wiley]

I think there needs to be some understanding of the failure modes being modeled, and whether or not they are achievable through shooter effort, or if they are random. In your example above, hitting cable will cause a flap to get stuck. But flaps already get stuck. If you are hoping the damage model will include internals depicting the cables so that flaps will get stuck only when cables get hit, then I propose that would only be worth it if an attacker could effectively aim for a cable with a reasonable probability of hitting it. Otherwise making the cable damage random is effectively the same thing.

So you'd need to break this down into two lists:
1) what failure modes are missing from the current modeling
2) would require discrete affectation or random?

Well, my pie in the sky ideal would be having a down-to-the-rivet solidworks model of the plane that deforms according to the bullets that hit it.

Out here in the real world, I think it might be neat and somewhat attainable if there were some vague outlines inside the body of the airframe that would be damageable, so with the cable example, where the cable runs there'd be a hitbox that if it were struck would result in cable severage.  For the engine, have the cooling, oil and maybe electrical systems outlined on the engine block, same deal.

For the control surfaces, maybe have them broken into 3 or 4 segments that would have x number of hitpoints and have the surface's effectiveness scale with the amount of damage on it until it's blown off.

edit: No random stuff at all, other than possibly amount of damage based on distance from the cannon explosion.  Whatever gets struck gets damaged.

Wiley.