Subsystems, Quirks, and Unique Features

[Vraciu]

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.

[Saxman]

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.

[morfiend]

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!


   

[atlau]

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

[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!


   

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.

[morfiend]

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!



   

[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!



   

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.

[morfiend]

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.

   




   

[Saxman]

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!



   

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.

[morfiend]

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.....

  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.


   

[Saxman]

Well, I'd set the tracers by what was used historically for that aircraft/country.

[lunaticfringe]

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.

[lunaticfringe]

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.

[lunaticfringe]

Well, I'd set the tracers by what was used historically for that aircraft/country.

don't mess with my tracers man-I like having the ability to turn them on and off when I want.

[lunaticfringe]

I agree 100% with Vraciu.  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.