PDA

View Full Version : Oleg, have you ever considered reliability as an option?



KraljMatjaz
03-06-2006, 10:56 AM
In my opinion this would bring your superior flight sim even closer to reality. I mean random malfunctions of systems - not only when hit (hydrawlics, gunsight, engine, landing gear, prop-pitch, radio, gun(s), ...)

Now all systems we have, are 100% reliable. Sometimes engine died without any visible reason. Sometimes gear stuck, sometimes a bulb in a sight burnt out. I know nothing about IL2 code, however with my (relatively poor I must admit) programing skills I assume for simplest systems it could be done with relative ease.

Thank you for developing this simulation.

Best regards,

KM

stansdds
03-06-2006, 06:38 PM
It may already be there. I recently flew a mission, just cruising along to the target area and my engine starts losing power and the RPM's begin to fluctuate.

A while back, while in a co-op mission, we had one pilot unable to keep up, his engine just would not make enough power to climb and keep up with us.

VW-IceFire
03-06-2006, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by stansdds:
It may already be there. I recently flew a mission, just cruising along to the target area and my engine starts losing power and the RPM's begin to fluctuate.

A while back, while in a co-op mission, we had one pilot unable to keep up, his engine just would not make enough power to climb and keep up with us.
1) Probably flak

2) Probably pilot skill coupled with fuel capacity (makes a huge difference) and engine management.

The current game doesn't really do reliability. One virtual aircraft is much the same as another. It was mentioned that BoB, at least for the campaign mode, would have persistant aircraft damage where performance would degrade with battle damage/patch up jobs.

I wouldn't mind a small variance of say 3% plus or minus from the baseline. Anything larger and you'd have some pretty difficult issues to face with online competition and all that sort of thing.

Targ
03-07-2006, 01:34 AM
I remember in IL2 the 109 engine had to be warmed up on a winter map or you would burn it up if it was not at least 40c.
Neat in a way but not so fun in many others. Waiting an hour to finally get a coop going and running down the runway your engine starts to caugh and weeze, land mission over. See ya later fellas and better luck next time, oh well.
No, it was not fun.

PILOT-SF
03-07-2006, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Targ:
...See ya later fellas and better luck next time, oh well.
No, it was not fun.

It should be optional. Then you could leave it out when playing online coops.

Lodovik
03-07-2006, 03:08 AM
I think that this proposition is about as old as combat flight sims themselves. I remember first discussing this with friends back in 1991 when playing Red Baron on a shared computer.
I think that it's a sound idea, but actually a bit tricky to implement for reasons not readily apparent.
In offline play it would be OK, alltough maybe resource heavy if it covered all AI planes in a mission as well as the players plane. In offline play things would get difficult in subtler ways.

As there are no Dynamic Online campaigns where both sides actions and mission success determined the availability and possibility of repairs and supply, the random problems would actually be arbitrary.
They would be especially arbitrary if they occured from just one string of code and the probabilities were allways the same for all the plane types. A better solution would be to allow the server admin to choose mech failures as an option and change the probabilities freely.

This would ofcourse add a lot to the mission building workload as every plane type would have to be set separately to reflect the mission situation (supply, time for repairs before the depicted mission etc.).

Perhaps the optimum solution would be to implement three different options for mechanical failures:
1) No failures enabled
2) A set of "factory set" failures occuring with pre-set probabilities (say, 3% for all systems)
3) A set of custom settings for missions set by mission maker. For a really over the top option, every subsystem in every plane type could be set to have their own Probablity Of Failure (POF).

I see this aspect working mainly with offline and coop play. In DF arenas 99% of pilots would just ditch the faulty AC when the failure made itself apparent and hit Re-Fly.
And faults that would manifest while taxiing to runway would cause anyone to quit there. In coop missions with no respawn option, like we have now, this just would not be Fun(tm).

stansdds
03-07-2006, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stansdds:
It may already be there. I recently flew a mission, just cruising along to the target area and my engine starts losing power and the RPM's begin to fluctuate.

A while back, while in a co-op mission, we had one pilot unable to keep up, his engine just would not make enough power to climb and keep up with us.
1) Probably flak

2) Probably pilot skill coupled with fuel capacity (makes a huge difference) and engine management.

The current game doesn't really do reliability. One virtual aircraft is much the same as another. It was mentioned that BoB, at least for the campaign mode, would have persistant aircraft damage where performance would degrade with battle damage/patch up jobs.

I wouldn't mind a small variance of say 3% plus or minus from the baseline. Anything larger and you'd have some pretty difficult issues to face with online competition and all that sort of thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Incidents occurred shortly after take off, no where near flak guns.

2. This was in the Corsair, cowl flaps open to setting #6, temps well below the red line, full fuel tank.

And this was at a fairly low altitude, less than 5000 feet, so it wasn't a blower setting as I made sure the blower was in its lowest stage.

VVS-Manuc
03-07-2006, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by stansdds:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stansdds:
It may already be there. I recently flew a mission, just cruising along to the target area and my engine starts losing power and the RPM's begin to fluctuate.

A while back, while in a co-op mission, we had one pilot unable to keep up, his engine just would not make enough power to climb and keep up with us.
1) Probably flak

2) Probably pilot skill coupled with fuel capacity (makes a huge difference) and engine management.

The current game doesn't really do reliability. One virtual aircraft is much the same as another. It was mentioned that BoB, at least for the campaign mode, would have persistant aircraft damage where performance would degrade with battle damage/patch up jobs.

I wouldn't mind a small variance of say 3% plus or minus from the baseline. Anything larger and you'd have some pretty difficult issues to face with online competition and all that sort of thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Incidents occurred shortly after take off, no where near flak guns.

2. This was in the Corsair, cowl flaps open to setting #6, temps well below the red line, full fuel tank.

And this was at a fairly low altitude, less than 5000 feet, so it wasn't a blower setting as I made sure the blower was in its lowest stage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

mixture too rich

guderian_ente
03-07-2006, 06:36 AM
I think modelling (lack of) reliability is a great idea. And no, it is not modelled in the game right now.

This is what aircraft historians have to say about some of the aircraft in the game:

"The unreliable engine kept Shidens mostly unserviceable."

"Progressive deterioration in quality control meant that pilots never knew how particular Ki-84 would perform, whether the brakes would work or whether, trying to intercept B-29s over Japan, they would even be able to climb high enough. [..] The 22nd Sentai then moved to the Philippines, where the rot set in with accidents, shortages and extremely poor serviceability. Frequent bombing of the Musashi engine factory led to various projects and prototypes made of wood or steel [as opposed to aluminium]."

"The axial engines on the Me 262 were unreliable and casualties due to engine failres, fires or break-up were heavy. The Mk 108 gun was also prone to jam, and the landing gear to collapse."

"On the aircraft front, only the Brewsters were considered to have any potential life left at the end of 1942. The Fiats and Moranes were worn out - they could barely reach a top speed of 350 km/h [compared to over 400 km/h in the game]."

Obviously a realistic flight sim needs to model these factors.

LEBillfish
03-07-2006, 07:20 AM
Would be great!!!....Yet as big if not bigger can of worms the FM's per plane. A LOT of variables, all on a case by case basis. If you make things generic then there will be repercussions from the community...Make them specific, then there will be dispute as to it's authenticity.

Not a bad idea, yet imagine the work it took to get "accurate" performance figures for planes which are still being debated....Now imagine trying to sort through service/failure records.

So I doubt it would be something we'll see for a while.

tigertalon
03-07-2006, 07:25 AM
Great idea indeed, KM. Especially gun jams should be implemented (not only when weapon is damaged) IMO.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Not a bad idea, yet imagine the work it took to get "accurate" performance figures for planes which are still being debated....Now imagine trying to sort through service/failure records.


I agree, however even the roughest estimate of how often gun jamed would be better than now, when they are all 100% accurate. It is like wingbreak: IRL it for sure didn't happen on all planes at exactly 15g, but it's better to have it like this than having unbreakable wings...

jermin122
03-07-2006, 07:32 AM
then we should have another function supported: fuel and ammo reloadable, plane fixable(with out hitting refly)

SeaFireLIV
03-07-2006, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Targ:
I remember in IL2 the 109 engine had to be warmed up on a winter map or you would burn it up if it was not at least 40c.
Neat in a way but not so fun in many others. Waiting an hour to finally get a coop going and running down the runway your engine starts to caugh and weeze, land mission over. See ya later fellas and better luck next time, oh well.
No, it was not fun.


The LA5 (and some others) engines would sometimes quit out on starting, in fact, i remember Oleg saying in the readme that they took out sparkplug failures http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. I wish we had it, at least as an option.

Nimits
03-07-2006, 05:38 PM
If all they added was random engine failures and MG jamming, that would be great!

guderian_ente
03-08-2006, 05:47 AM
Waiting an hour to finally get a coop going and running down the runway your engine starts to caugh and weeze, land mission over. See ya later fellas and better luck next time, oh well.

No, it was not fun.

Of course such a feature should be optional. It would work best in offline campaigns and probably wouldn't work at all in dogfight servers.

In coops and squadron wars it's a preference thing, but I think it could lead to some interesting decisions like "do we take our chances with the Shiden/Me 262/etc, which is great when it works, or do we go with something more reliable?".

Monson74
03-08-2006, 12:12 PM
As an option - yes, very good idea & it might work online as well if the % chance of failure could be set by the server/host.

LEBillfish
03-08-2006, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by guderian_ente:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Waiting an hour to finally get a coop going and running down the runway your engine starts to caugh and weeze, land mission over. See ya later fellas and better luck next time, oh well.

No, it was not fun.

Of course such a feature should be optional. It would work best in offline campaigns and probably wouldn't work at all in dogfight servers.

In coops and squadron wars it's a preference thing, but I think it could lead to some interesting decisions like "do we take our chances with the Shiden/Me 262/etc, which is great when it works, or do we go with something more reliable?". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That IS the problem not so much in that just deciding degree's of unreliability but more so the bazillion whines, gripes, complaints and arguments to come after as to X plane was better then Y.

The only way to do it would have to be sweeping across the board generic problems.......Then even still you'll have complaints based on individual factors of planes.

Don't get me wrong.....I'd love to see it. I just don't think 1. It's practical as the sim stands, 2. Worth the probable hassles to come or 3. something easily done due to the variables and immense data required.

So really just generic "guns jam, engine dies, etc." sort of sweeping things with a pat response to gripes of "tough ti**y" is the only way it could pan out.

Targ
03-08-2006, 02:15 PM
A toggle switch for random engine failure would be nice for those that wanted it. But as Billfish says, this would open a whole can of worms :vhap
Early Russian and later war German would be no fun for lots of people http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

x6BL_Brando
03-08-2006, 04:56 PM
then we should have another function supported: fuel and ammo reloadable, plane fixable(with out hitting refly)

How long would you be prepared to sit on the virtual tarmac then? 10-15 minutes for fuelling and re-arming? Maybe another 20-30 minutes while damage is assessed and spares are obtained? Or add ten more minutes while the truck comes to tow your empty or broken plane to a suitable place for the (limited number of) erks to work on it? Will you want different time for an eight m/g plane compared to a twin cannon job?
I don't think it's at all a good idea unless you are prepared to wait a realistic length of time for these procedures to be completed.

Plus, and very important, can you stand having the constant threads about how quickly great-uncle Albi could turn around a 109 and what a red bias there is, etc etc - or vice versa for Grandfather Albert rearming a Spit?

tagTaken2
03-08-2006, 09:51 PM
THIS IS A RUBBISH IDEA. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

If you want to simulate something like this, feel free to yank the pc power cord from the wall every half hour. You should start getting random pc lockups after a week or two...

Quite apart from the point raised by LeBillFish.

WWSensei
03-09-2006, 05:26 AM
I would prefer to see persistent wear and tear on engines--at least for offline campaigns or maybe online NGen/DCG campaigns.

Because we get factory fresh aircraft on every spawn people fly mostly firewalled throttles until they get an overheat warning. Ever read some the specs on these aircraft and their real "normal" usage? Shoot, just read some of the warning labels on the dashboards of some aircraft.

Imagine the change to your game if you knew flying that extra 15 mins at 80+% throttle meant in 2 missions you would either have to fly a lesser aircraft or be unable to fly for some number of days (talking campaign scenarios with moving fronts so I mean "game days") and this allowed the enemy to capture key areas or even overrun your base?

DEY_Scull_AUS
03-09-2006, 06:27 AM
A couple of times since 4.04 came out, I've had my engine stop for no apparent reason. There was no messages about overheating, inoperable, no fuel, and there was no flak in the sky. It's also happened to one of my squadmates. I can't remember what plane I was flying the first time, but the second time it was a fw190.
I don't know if this is a bug or a reliability thing or what.

carguy_
03-09-2006, 08:40 AM
Was covered in IL2.People always said @#@#%@# Oleg I #&^$# you #$@^$#!! when getting them failures.

SeaFireLIV
03-09-2006, 09:55 AM
That`s the problem. Some failures did exist but whiners whined it away, before people like me were even aware that it was possible to do! I`d only just come into the sim at the time, and many others who didn`t have a problem simply didn`t post... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Another case of something being cut for the few loudest and not the many quietest.

Ratsack
03-14-2006, 07:16 PM
Have a look at this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/7711059714

It offers an alternative way of modelling reliability as a factor of how you mistreat your aircraft.

cheers,
Ratsack

Aaron_GT
03-15-2006, 02:46 AM
Random chance of failure and persistent wear and tear on the same aircraft in a campaign would be great. I thought this was something that was coming in Battle of Britain, though?

I'd like to float the not entirely serious idea of 'beer points' for pilots in campaigns to spend, though. These points could be spent on little enhancements to your plane in a campaign. So if you wanted the ground crew to rub down all the leading edges of your plane and put putty in the joints for that extra 5 mph then you could. (In reality, though, squadron aircraft in the Battle of Britain were shared between pilots, plus I think it is more complex than it is worth - hence it's not a serious suggestion).

jermin122
03-18-2006, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">then we should have another function supported: fuel and ammo reloadable, plane fixable(with out hitting refly)

How long would you be prepared to sit on the virtual tarmac then? 10-15 minutes for fuelling and re-arming? Maybe another 20-30 minutes while damage is assessed and spares are obtained? Or add ten more minutes while the truck comes to tow your empty or broken plane to a suitable place for the (limited number of) erks to work on it? Will you want different time for an eight m/g plane compared to a twin cannon job?
I don't think it's at all a good idea unless you are prepared to wait a realistic length of time for these procedures to be completed.

Plus, and very important, can you stand having the constant threads about how quickly great-uncle Albi could turn around a 109 and what a red bias there is, etc etc - or vice versa for Grandfather Albert rearming a Spit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, let me take some time to explain it. If you want to be as realist as IRL, it will cost you much more time to prepare for takeoff, fuel and rearming. What I mean actually is that if in a very important long-awaited coop mission, right after you take off with 8 or 16 squad mates, your engine starts to flame out. You have no choice but RTB and then leave the game. Tell me how do you feel? If you can tolerate this then you will of course live with the "10-15"+"20-30" minutes' wait.

Brain32
03-18-2006, 05:32 AM
Reliability is nice BUT only if AI stops pushing it 110%+WEP all the time. AI planes have to be adjusted.
As for re-arm and re-fuel why would we need to wait RL time until it's done? I mean come on http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif we still play this game not living it...