Author Topic: Ultra realism for new Mission Arena? (Read 756 times)

Lucchini · « **Reply #45 on:** November 09, 2002, 09:21:15 AM »

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

J_A_B · « **Reply #46 on:** November 09, 2002, 01:22:52 PM »

"It's another blind attempt to make a case for a feature excluded from AH. Please."

Well then enlighten us, your lordship

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

Creamo · « **Reply #47 on:** November 09, 2002, 02:16:58 PM »

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.

beet1e · « **Reply #48 on:** November 09, 2002, 04:05:45 PM »

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.

715 · « **Reply #49 on:** November 09, 2002, 08:29:15 PM »

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.

cajun · « **Reply #50 on:** November 10, 2002, 12:06:04 AM »

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..

Joc · « **Reply #51 on:** November 10, 2002, 04:20:13 AM »

The more realistic the better.

illo · « **Reply #52 on:** November 10, 2002, 09:17:12 PM »

Quote

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

lazs2 · « **Reply #53 on:** November 11, 2002, 10:25:18 AM »

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

ergRTC · « **Reply #54 on:** November 11, 2002, 11:10:41 AM »

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....

Sandman · « **Reply #55 on:** November 11, 2002, 11:18:23 AM »

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?"

lazs2 · « **Reply #56 on:** November 11, 2002, 12:10:59 PM »

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."

blitz · « **Reply #57 on:** November 11, 2002, 12:25:42 PM »

Would love t see all that stuff

Blitz

Don · « **Reply #58 on:** November 11, 2002, 12:33:11 PM »

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.

ergRTC · « **Reply #59 on:** November 11, 2002, 12:38:05 PM »

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.