PDA

View Full Version : Aircraft historical Failures/ Weakness... Can we have them?



SeaFireLIV
04-10-2004, 01:09 PM
It seems to me that aircraft in FB don`t suffer from any kind of historical-based failures...?

I remember in the readme of one patch that spark plugs failure were removed. I hadn`t even noticed it.

IMHO, I would actually PREFER historical failures in aircraft. It would be no problem to me if I had to restart an engine 3 or 4 times because of cold weather, or dodgy mechanics. I wouldn`t mind if my engine quit suddenly due to historical unreliability. Sure, it would be a pain, but I would enjoy the realism of it. It would also put some `weakness` to aircraft that performed in a manner too good for reality. Also, guns never seem to jam due to high manouevers in FB, they always did in EAW under certain circumstances....

I know many will not like this idea. But it would be great if this could be incorporated in FB as an OPTION `Aircraft failures` ON/OFF.

Can we have that incorporated for realism please?

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

SeaFireLIV
04-10-2004, 01:09 PM
It seems to me that aircraft in FB don`t suffer from any kind of historical-based failures...?

I remember in the readme of one patch that spark plugs failure were removed. I hadn`t even noticed it.

IMHO, I would actually PREFER historical failures in aircraft. It would be no problem to me if I had to restart an engine 3 or 4 times because of cold weather, or dodgy mechanics. I wouldn`t mind if my engine quit suddenly due to historical unreliability. Sure, it would be a pain, but I would enjoy the realism of it. It would also put some `weakness` to aircraft that performed in a manner too good for reality. Also, guns never seem to jam due to high manouevers in FB, they always did in EAW under certain circumstances....

I know many will not like this idea. But it would be great if this could be incorporated in FB as an OPTION `Aircraft failures` ON/OFF.

Can we have that incorporated for realism please?

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

XyZspineZyX
04-10-2004, 02:05 PM
That'd cut into the popularity of the Ueber-Frank, certainly, wouldn't it?

I vote for this one myself.

Bull_dog_
04-10-2004, 02:27 PM
I'd love to see some of that modelled, but Oh My would that start another huge raging debate!

I think most of that information and its subsequent effects would be annectodotal in nature. How did German aircraft do with Synthetic fuel...how about russian aircraft with wooden parts in high G turns? Americans at Guadalcanal without oxygen tanks...and yes our beloved Ki-84 with a top speed of 388 mph...whew it would be bad I think

Vipez-
04-10-2004, 03:40 PM
I doubt we would see such feature (even though i would like it also a lot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ), as I would think some russian early war planes would be kinda unreliable.. for example Migs with the Klimov engine was extremely unreliable ..


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

ASH at S-MART
04-10-2004, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
It seems to me that aircraft in FB don`t suffer from any kind of historical-based failures...?

I remember in the readme of one patch that spark plugs failure were removed. I hadn`t even noticed it.

IMHO, I would actually PREFER historical failures in aircraft. It would be no problem to me if I had to restart an engine 3 or 4 times because of cold weather, or dodgy mechanics. I wouldn`t mind if my engine quit suddenly due to historical unreliability. Sure, it would be a pain, but I would enjoy the realism of it. It would also put some `weakness` to aircraft that performed in a manner too good for reality. Also, guns never seem to jam due to high manouevers in FB, they always did in EAW under certain circumstances....

I know many will not like this idea. But it would be great if this could be incorporated in FB as an OPTION `Aircraft failures` ON/OFF.

Can we have that incorporated for realism please?

SeaFireLIV...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Neat idea.. But in light of the FACT that people can not even agree on the factory specs, NACA test, Test pilot accounts... I find it hard to belive that they could even begin to agree on things as opertional failers.. In that some if not alot of those things were not very well documented.. Would open up a real can o worms IMHO

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
04-10-2004, 03:56 PM
It gets worse. For dynamic campaigns where Germany, Japan, and Italy are winning the WAR, the P~51 and Yak~9 will suffer the same manufacturing and reliability defects as is claimed for Ki~84. All planes would have to have either good, bad, or medium failure rates depending on how the WAR was going at the time.

For example He~177 engines were getting more reliable near the end, and this should take precedence over unreliable He~177 if Germany is winning the WAR in a campaign.

For this very reason, it must effect AI planes as well as player planes, or it cannot be a workable feature.

timmyg
04-10-2004, 04:15 PM
I also enjoy having to restart motors in fly when you stall them out. Having to nurse some of the planes is fun. The one byplane that came in the ace pack has the motor stall out if you run wide open to long. It restarts fine.

Angelus897
04-10-2004, 04:30 PM
Does anyone know if the FB engine can handle it? If not, I hope it will be in BoB.

SeaFireLIV
04-10-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
It gets worse. For dynamic campaigns where Germany, Japan, and Italy are winning the WAR, the P~51 and Yak~9 will suffer the same manufacturing and reliability defects as is claimed for Ki~84. All planes would have to have either good, bad, or medium failure rates depending on how the WAR was going at the time.

For example He~177 engines were getting more reliable near the end, and this should take precedence over unreliable He~177 if Germany is winning the WAR in a campaign.

For this very reason, it must effect AI planes as well as player planes, or it cannot be a workable feature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good points, Lexx, and the other guys are right about extra whines developing. The only solution I could think of was making it at least an optional choice. At least keep the SPARK PLUGS failure.

But I like Lexx`s suggestions and they should also be inplemented alongside breakdowns/failures in online/offline campaigns.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

Bobsqueek
04-10-2004, 05:50 PM
It also depends on the area you fly in

German planes on the eastern front were prolly less well looked after and were in much worse conditions when compared to their counterparts in the west. So then theres the issue of how degraded the performance should be on each front. people will whine that their bf/fw should fly faster in the normandy maps because it was well looked after. Also, what about the online maps?

Click the link for my skins
http://server5.uploadit.org/files/Bobsqueek-template.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=bobs&comefrom=top5&ts=1076359444)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

LEXX_Luthor
04-10-2004, 06:50 PM
Also depends on how often you fly your fave planes. The more you fly them, the more worn out they get and more failures, until you Reformat and Reinstall. Or you buy a new FB cd if Oleg can make it work something like Windows XP registration.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SeaFireLIV
04-10-2004, 09:33 PM
Ok, Lexx, I liked your previous idea, but now you`re just being silly...

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

Fehler
04-12-2004, 06:17 AM
I would prefer to see stress/stamina modeled in this game or BoB.

X amount of G's for X amount of time = X amount of stamina loss.

Stamina regained at X amount of normal flying time.

This would do away with some of the unrealistic maneuvers you see in online play where pilots fly on the edge of blackout for 5 minutes at a time.

And since Oleg is an accomplished pilot as well as an engineer, who would be better to model this into a sim?

I just find it hard to believe that a human could fly a plane for long extended periods of time pulling 4-7 G's without boosted controls, and still fly just as effectively as if he was flying straight and level. Try holding a fifty pound weight for five minutes. Now think how easy it would be if you were in a 3G maneuver while your blood was being thrown to your extremities. You can do it all day long in this sim... I bet most of you couldnt do it for more than 30 seconds in real life...

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

PikeBishop
04-12-2004, 06:56 AM
Hi all,

If this idea is incorperated I feel that it must be done on a percentage basis right across the board so that for instance, Ki84 haters can't use it as a way to bias the game toward people not using the Ki84 for fear of being scuppered before they even start. If all have the same chance of failure then no-one will have a problem with it.

regards

SLP

ASH at S-MART
04-12-2004, 08:52 AM
I think all this would just open up a can o worms... In service failers are not very well documented.. Espically in some services.. And what few records taht might haave existed in japan or germany were probally lost during the bombing raids..

With that said... Look at all the problems and arguments about things that are documented well.. We can not even agree on those.. and now we want to introduce something like this?

Second concern is what if we do find a FM bug.. Say climb rate at a certain alt is way low.. How would you know if it is a failer or a bug?

Just imagine the WHINE you would hear if Oleg anounced he was going to factor in the fuel quality... If that was done alot of the uber JAP and JERRY planes would take a big hit in performance.

It would be neat and all.. but I dont know.. if they do it.. I hope to god it is an option so I can turn it off..

I do like the stress/stamina thing though.. A few sims have done that in the past.. it is indpendent of the type of aircraft and applys to all pilots by the same amount.. Then you could model things like g suits too.

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

VW-IceFire
04-12-2004, 09:35 AM
Thing is this would have to be a very randomized thing. I think Oleg is going to partially go in this direction for BoB and beyond that point but I'm certain he'll probably want to keep it to a certain level.

In an example of my favorite sets of planes...the Typhoon and Tempest with their Sabre engines were prone to randomly lighting on fire when starting the engine. Ground crews would always standby with fire extinguishers.

Early Typhoons were known to shed their tails in high speed dives (15 or so were lost to this)...the exact cause was never determined and it didn't happen to every plane conducting a 500 mph + dive.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

ASH at S-MART
04-12-2004, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Thing is this would have to be a very randomized thing. I think Oleg is going to partially go in this direction for BoB and beyond that point but I'm certain he'll probably want to keep it to a certain level.

In an example of my favorite sets of planes...the Typhoon and Tempest with their Sabre engines were prone to randomly lighting on fire when starting the engine. Ground crews would always standby with fire extinguishers.

Early Typhoons were known to shed their tails in high speed dives (15 or so were lost to this)...the exact cause was never determined and it didn't happen to every plane conducting a 500 mph + dive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If Oleg did some sort of RANDOM failer thing.. Something that ALL aircraft had from time to time.. That would be cool.. But to try and come up with something based on or tailered to specific aircraft? Like the Ki teathing problems.. etc... with some sort of statistical value to simulate frequancy of such events.. There is just not enough data out there to do that FAIRLY... But just some general failer where the statistical probabilty is the same for all aircraft.. That would be easy and fair to do.. But.. I can think of 100+ things I would rather see done before that.. For example, I would rather see all the flight models get *tweaked* some more torwards realism before we start applying failers to them. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

SeaFireLIV
04-12-2004, 11:01 AM
But failures is a part of adding more realism! Interesting. Perhaps then it would be fairer (and simpler to accomodate) to have a general percentage failure rate in all aircraft. The old spark plug thing for example or engine failure.

I think this could be worked around. It seems silly to have pristine military aircraft flying around with absolutely no realistic weakness failures. Even modern day aircraft have failures from time to time.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

crazyivan1970
04-12-2004, 11:05 AM
It is a valid request. I am not sure how this could be modeled, because we get the fresh plane every time. If we could use same plane over and over (untill virtual death or capture or crash) that would be easier to model, meaning engine resource, structure failures due to previos damage...etc. But i guess there is possibility to model percentage of failures even for new planes.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Gato-Loco
04-12-2004, 11:31 AM
I like this idea a lot. I think failures should be a random event with similar failures rates in all planes (to avoid discussions about historicall failure rates). But also it could be neat to have the failure rate itself randomly selected in such a way so its low most of the time, but very rarely it could be higher. This could represent "random bad luck" (a combination of poor quality fuel, bad parts, etc.), causing more than one failure at the time. The failure rate itself could also be a function of weather conditions (maybe more failures in very windy/stormy situations).
The mathematics involved in calculating failures rates this way are very simple (I know... I do computer models for a living).
I'd love to see something like this in FB or in BOB.

ASH at S-MART
04-12-2004, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
But failures is a part of adding more realism!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. but it would also be more realistic if I put a gun to my head and pulled the trigger after my simulated pilot got killed... BUT I DONT! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif There is and allways be comprmises made.. As for failures.. Im all for it! All Im saying is that trying to come up with some simulated failures that are based on specific aircraft problems (ie like Ki teathing problems) will be a can of worms that can not be done well due to the lack of data. But some generic thing (like spark plug failures) that have the same percentage of happening on any plane is a good comprmise!

I do like the idea of crazyivan1970 of having the same aircraft through out your tour!!!!!

It would be really imersive if you could see damage that got repaired and *AND* see the KILL MARKS painted on the side of your aircraft after each sortie... NO SIM I know of has done that yet... IL2 has everything in it allready to do it.. but they dont...

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

SeaFireLIV
04-12-2004, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
But failures is a part of adding more realism!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


but it would also be more realistic if I put a gun to my head and pulled the trigger after my simulated pilot got killed... BUT I DONT! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er... right. Great comparison.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Mon April 12 2004 at 03:44 PM.]

darah1875
04-12-2004, 05:09 PM
Great idea.
Doubt very much it could be implemented but very intersting.

PzKpfw
04-12-2004, 05:36 PM
Every planes quirks; would have to be modeled & their is not eneough data on operational ready rates vs those down for maintence etc, to even base a statistical % on.

We could say provide one for planes lost from crashes from non combat causes etc. Ie, if you were flying as the Germans you could watch 4-6 of your wingman crash & burn on each takeoff, etc.

We used to discuss modeling this very thing in our wargames, Ie, final drive failure modeling for the Panther, engine failures for the T-34-85 etc. But we never did, as no one would buy the sim.

Ppl didnt want their AFVs etc haveing no armour piercing ammunition, breaking down, or stranded for lack of fuel, etc, it was that simple.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

ASH at S-MART
04-12-2004, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Er... right. Great comparison.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. thanks... but it really was not meant as one.. It was meant to show just how gray the realism line is.. No two people agree where it should be drawn.. LET ALONE WHERE IT CURRENTLY IS!!

Which is a perfect example of my orginal POINT.. With regards to trying to make the FAILUERS some how dependent on historical failures per a specific aircraft.. You think the FM arguments are bad.. JUST WAIT till they start to debate the historical failures!! At least the FM's are based in some small part on hard data.. Where as the historical failures would be based on some sort of statistial data to generate some frequency of failuers... IMHO there just anit enough data on that to do it right.. It would be a FUDGE based on a WHIM... And if you think Oleg gets alot of flack for the Russian ubar stuff.. Wait until the Ki84 crowed starts beyching about how Oleg determined taht 7 out of 10 flight in a Ki84 resulted in teathing problems based off one note from some mechanic who sais soemthing about something... Not saying it is imposialbe.. Just that I dont think there is enough data out there to do it right... AND that there are much beter things that could be done to improve the game.. Just my opinion from observing forums like this

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

SeaFireLIV
04-12-2004, 07:41 PM
Hey, Ashsmart, i`m not saying you`re wrong. The whines would probably go through the roof, I realised this even before I posted, but posted anyway. Why?

Cos I still think it`s a good idea, if a way could be found to do it so as to limit the whines. The best idea so far seems to be:

1: Give ALL PLANES THE SAME failure rating.

2: Keep the failures rare. Maybe a typical aircraft would have a failure once out of 10 or 20 flights.

3. failure would be random, sometimes forcing a return to base, immediate loss of power or enable some fighting at reduced efficency.

A revised and simpler summary.

I don`t expect this to be implemented (too late for the patch anyway), but it`s interesting for debate.

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/spitfpetite.jpg

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Mon April 12 2004 at 06:52 PM.]

LuftKuhMist
04-12-2004, 07:50 PM
Failures could be a great idea but they would have to be adjustable and would have to be effective for AI too.

How about failure in ordonnance also? Like bombs that didn't detonnate.

Anyhow for failures you would have to have ressources in career. Like if your casualties are too high you get to fly unready planes. Also you couldn't always carry the MK108 or Rockets, for instance. Anyway I'm Off topic now so I'll Shut up.

http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/MOMS.gif http://www.ifrance.com/boussourir/grab0004.jpg

pourshot
04-13-2004, 02:02 AM
The lack of airframe and pilot stress has always been the greatest weakness of this sim. I think adding such a thing would be a huge step forwards, just think about it no more bat turns and no more going around and around and around.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/mybaby.jpeg.JPG
Ride It Like Ya Stole It

MatuDa
04-13-2004, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
But to try and come up with something based on or tailered to specific aircraft? with some sort of statistical value to simulate frequancy of such events.. There is just not enough data out there to do that FAIRLY... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would find it more fair than the situation is now. For example early war LaGG3 and mig3 had extreme quality problems and what we have now is 100% perfect aircrafts. Same with certain late war plants producing 109 and 190.. I think it would be fun and realistic if problems occurred during flight.

The stamina-issue is very good also. I think falcon3 had it back in 1996 already so there shouldn't be problems if the will is there to model it. That would give the gsuit equipped pilots an edge over others in long encounters, which would be correct. Also the FW190 series has the the seat designed to allow pilot to rest back to better withstand g-forces. Normal flying position was not back to the seat as is modelled now. Both ideas, flaws and stamina, get thumbs-up from me.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

ASH at S-MART
04-13-2004, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MatuDa:
I would find it more fair than the situation is now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dont, in that doing it based off of nothing more than "LaGG's had problems" with not data base to determine the frequency of the failers would not only be unfair... but unrealistic... In a nut shell.. aircraft that kept better records would be hampered more than aircraft that didnt... Add to that the fact that alot of the records for AXIS aircraft were destroyed.. And you got a real one sided and unfair situaiton.

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
04-13-2004, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Merlin P-51 had a lot of teething problems, but, for some reason, they
are largely overlooked. It had problems with the canopy frosting over,
with jamming guns, with the engine cooling system and the engine
itself--and with shedding the tail. In fact, the plane had so many
problems initially that Col. Don Blakeslee, CO of the 4FG, called it "an
experimental aircraft" and expressed doubts that it could be successful.
The P-38 had gone through its teething troubles the previous fall and with
the introduction into ETO combat of the J model well-pleased its pilots.
FGs getting the P-51 were unhappy and pilots grumbled that they would
rather have the Lockheed. It was not uncommon to have almost 30 percent of
P-51 sorties aborted for mechanical reasons during the winter and spring of
1944 (typical abort rate for all causes for all USAAF aircraft was 8 percent).
When the D model became available in quantity in the summer, cases of the
aircraft losing its tail surfaces in flight began to be reported. Flight
restrictions were placed on the aircraft and the tail surfaces were beefed
up. Wing failures were also reported due to control stick force reversal
in high-speed dives. The bobweight was added to the elevator control
system to fix this problem. But for the aircraft to be even marginally
stable, the fuselage fuel tank had to be less than half full.
The Mustang still had problems a year later when the 7AF began B-29 escort
missions to Japan. Incidences were reported of tail surface failures in
dogfights. In one instance in April, 1945, a P-51D got into a dogfight with
a Mitsubishi Raiden. During the violent maneuvering, the Mustang first
shed its tail control surfaces and then its wings were torn off. The
pilot, 2Lt. James Beattie, did not get out. The Raiden apparently suffered
no damage from the severe loads placed on it during the dogfight.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ASH at S-MART
04-13-2004, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Hey, Ashsmart, i`m not saying you`re wrong. The whines would probably go through the roof, I realised this even before I posted, but posted anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not probably.. garintied to go through the roof! In that even when presented with DATA.. two different people interpted differently sometimes.. Now we want to model something we dont even have data on? Can O Worms!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Why?

Cos I still think it`s a good idea, if a way could be found to do it so as to limit the whines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
The best idea so far seems to be:

1: Give ALL PLANES THE SAME failure rating.

2: Keep the failures rare. Maybe a typical aircraft would have a failure once out of 10 or 20 flights.

3. failure would be random, sometimes forcing a return to base, immediate loss of power or enable some fighting at reduced efficency.

A revised and simpler summary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. I agree with you in that you agree with me.. it would have to be some generic failers with same probability for every aircraft type.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I don`t expect this to be implemented (too late for the patch anyway), but it`s interesting for debate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I totally agree with you.. 99.9% chace we wont see it in IL2 or PF... but mayb BoB?

ASH HOUSEWARES
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images4/brucecampbellSMart.jpg

ZG77_Nagual
04-13-2004, 06:51 PM
Modeling random failures - not a good idea.

Some of this sort of stuff will be modeled in BOB campaigns I think - structural weakness caused by damage/repair etc. I think I read even tire pressure will be modeled.

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Tue April 13 2004 at 06:25 PM.]

DJDalton
04-13-2004, 07:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vipez-:
I doubt we would see such feature (even though i would like it also a lot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ), as I would think some russian early war planes would be kinda unreliable.. for example Migs with the Klimov engine was extremely unreliable ..


____________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of the devil. If engine defects are programmed into the game two of the engines that are going to be impacted most are the engines in the Ki-84's and Yak 9U's. The Ha-45-21/25 and the VK-107A. Those planes own motors destroyed near as many planes as the enemy.

Restoration enthusiasts have found a number of Yaks in post cold war Russia, but working or salvagable Klimov engines have been much more difficult to find.

"I never lost a wingman"

Erich Hartmann

easymo
04-14-2004, 12:16 AM
I would think, never existing would be a pretty big historical failure. To model the 109Z, and some others, right. You would have to put drawing boards in the hangers.

PlaneEater
04-14-2004, 01:09 AM
I'm all for it. As long as it's not overdone to the point of 'what's going to break on this flight?', I'd love to occasionally have something I'm not expecting turn things upside down.

It would mean adding a chunk of code in order to track the damage and stress on different aircraft components, and a way to incorporate various aircraft's quirks, but I'd love to see it done.

We've already got a little of it with the self-lighting Jumo 004Bs. I'd love to see things like Yaks, P-51s and LAs shedding wings, P-80s leaking fuel, P-38s suffering engine failure from icing in the carbourateur, and all the other certain troubles individual planes were dogged with.

Setting it up so that the player or host can choose severity, frequency (projected real, very infrequent, extremely rare), and which planes were affected (for specific scenarios, maybe) would be best.

There aren't many of them left. They flew these things. They stepped off the earth, into the sky, in a pair of metal wings and a howling, living, fire-breathing beast of war, and they fought.

And they died.

And the least we can do is remember they were heroes.

VMF513_Sandman
04-14-2004, 03:18 PM
think the biggest 'failure' we should at very least have is the 'fouled sparkplug' that u would get if u didnt reduce the fuel mix at the critical alt for lean mix from rich, and u would burn the plugs out if u dived from a lean mix alt to 1 that required full rich. hmmm, mebby that would cause quite a few of those zeke's to blow engines after chasin a 51 from angels 4 or 5 to under angels 2. the fuel mix should be made adjustable for all planes also.

planes with 2 stage supercharger's that fails to reduce from stage 2 to stage 1 at the alt required could seriously damage an engine...like it would in life.

LEXX_Luthor
04-14-2004, 03:28 PM
I recall reading many stories of P~51 pilots having to turn back to England cos of engine trouble.

For ~very~ hard core offwhine flight simmers, I would love to see player adjusted failures....but these are for the hard core set who don't Cheat themselves. Like if Germany is winning a WAR campaign, then late WAR Fb109 would have fewer failures and Spitfire would have alot of failures (and bad fuel too assuming the U~Boats were working well too).

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

MatuDa
04-15-2004, 01:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I recall reading many stories of P~51 pilots having to turn back to England cos of engine trouble.

For ~very~ hard core offwhine flight simmers, I would love to see player adjusted failures....but these are for the hard core set who don't Cheat themselves. Like if Germany is winning a WAR campaign, then late WAR Fb109 would have fewer failures and Spitfire would have alot of failures (and bad fuel too assuming the U~Boats were working well too).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even civilian simulators have several different malfunctions implemented and imho that makes it interesting, you would have to check gauges every once in a while to see all's well. Would add to the suspension of disbelief and overall enjoyability. Like many good things in this sim these should of course be a switch on difficulty settings so if you think it's stupid you'd have the option of leaving it off. Lets hope BOB will have this innit http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WUAF_Badsight
04-15-2004, 02:44 AM
yes BoB will have it some form or another

to do it fairly seems to be a huge task if you ask me

my vote is for

LEAVE FB THE WAY IT IS NOW

i think FB is more fun the way it is