PDA

View Full Version : Modelling aircraft reliability



drose01
04-10-2007, 10:37 AM
I was reading about the Ki84 series and again and again it was stated that in general that the aircraft was mechanically unreliable from plane to plane.

While one copy might be stellar, another might perform significantly worse.

The same was true to a lesser extent in other planes as well.

It seems like it might be possible to model this in-game. Any plane selected would have a random performance variation, depending on the type.

Maybe 1 in 3 Ki84s, for instance, would overheat or otherwise be susceptible to various malfunctions or performance problems. Planes that had better reliability would be much less likely to have these problems.

If players didn't want to use this feature, they could turn it off in the settings. But it might further the "realism" of the sim to model what was a significant historical factor.

drose01
04-10-2007, 10:37 AM
I was reading about the Ki84 series and again and again it was stated that in general that the aircraft was mechanically unreliable from plane to plane.

While one copy might be stellar, another might perform significantly worse.

The same was true to a lesser extent in other planes as well.

It seems like it might be possible to model this in-game. Any plane selected would have a random performance variation, depending on the type.

Maybe 1 in 3 Ki84s, for instance, would overheat or otherwise be susceptible to various malfunctions or performance problems. Planes that had better reliability would be much less likely to have these problems.

If players didn't want to use this feature, they could turn it off in the settings. But it might further the "realism" of the sim to model what was a significant historical factor.

anarchy52
04-10-2007, 10:46 AM
All WWII planes were unreliable compared to modern planes. Modeling random failures would just create flame wars as there aren't enough precise service records. It would be guesswork.

However, old Su-27 had the option to set different component failures on certain time in the mission. That would be better then hard coding failure rate. just leave it to the mission builders.

leitmotiv
04-10-2007, 10:52 AM
Random failures, as are modeled beautifully in FS9/X, should be an option in any flight sim.

jasonbirder
04-10-2007, 11:14 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Random failures would be an excellent addition to this sim

horseback
04-10-2007, 11:40 AM
My reading on the subject leads me to believe that there are several reliable sources for Commonwealth and US unit aircraft availability rates, and there are several German sources that indicate their 'up' rates were considerably lower. For example, Galland's biographies make it clear that the LW had real problems keeping its frontline fighter units over 60% operational, often not having the ability to get more than half their fighters on hand into the air, due to logistics problems.

The Japanese had even worse problems due not least to the loss of skilled prewar trained groundcrew at isolated base after base, instead of making a concerted effort to preserve these men (and their skills) by evacuating. Their attrition rates were horrendous. Add in the problems of supplying their bases, and the situation became very ugly very fast for them.

I have seen that certain (not surprisingly, top scoring) USAAF groups were able to field over 90% of their complement of aircraft close to 90% of the time, which is an enviable record even today, when aircraft are designed specifically for maintainability and take far fewer man-hours of maintenance time per flight hour.

RAF/Commonwealth squadrons in the top tier were able to maintain their aircraft at a similar level.

In a sim where the normal wear and tear of combat never lasts past the mission, and every aircraft is supposed to be modelled to the ideal factory fresh standard, though, I don't see reliability rates being added in this or the upcoming series. It doesn't seem to be high on Oleg's list of priorities.

cheers

horseback

carguy_
04-10-2007, 04:09 PM
Modelling unreliability ie.random failures would eliminate 5VVS pilots in a 8v8 `41-`42 Barbarossa coop and 3LW pilots in a 8v8 `44-`45 Berlin coop.

A show stopper for sure.

WWSpinDry
04-10-2007, 04:14 PM
Heh. That'd just teach 'em not to fly for the wrong side. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

flox
04-10-2007, 04:42 PM
This would be interesting indeed. If not outright mechanical failures, differences in performance (ig overheating, engine sputters or backfires, etc) due to wear & tear or general a/c quality would be a nice touch IMHO.

Bearcat99
04-10-2007, 06:21 PM
That would be a nice feature for offline campaigns.. but for online.... I don't know about any of you but my time is limited ..... When I get online I want to fly and I don't want to have to wait for a coop to fill up only to have to back out due to some random failure... It is bad enough with the restarts.... which IMO simulate technical difficulties quite enough for me.

Blutarski2004
04-11-2007, 10:27 AM
TARGET: BERLIN, by Ethell and Price give stats (as of Mar 44) for mission aborts on a unit by unit basis.

HayateAce
04-11-2007, 11:19 AM
Sure.

Also model in pilot stress factors from random bad letters from home.

WWSpinDry
04-11-2007, 11:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Also model in pilot stress factors from random bad letters from home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cool idea; of course you've got documentation for calculating the probabilities, else you'd not have offered; right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

FatBoyHK
04-11-2007, 11:27 AM
I say no. I don't want to hear all the whine from VVS and IJN/IJA fanboys

this is a game anyway.

If it is limited to offlien only, then may be it is ok....

carguy_
04-11-2007, 11:46 AM
Some planes have all sorts of weird failures modelled though.From time to time if I get hit in 109/190,especially by flak,there is no smoke but engine definitely changes the tune along with a bit of performance drop but it keeps on going.Side effect of this is that no matter how long you run such engine on 110%,it doesn`t want to overheat.

This being on the most popular planes I think.

Kettenhunde
04-11-2007, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My reading on the subject leads me to believe that there are several reliable sources for Commonwealth and US unit aircraft availability rates, and there are several German sources that indicate their 'up' rates were considerably lower. For example, Galland's biographies make it clear that the LW had real problems keeping its frontline fighter units over 60% operational, often not having the ability to get more than half their fighters on hand into the air, due to logistics problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is due to logistics not mechanical issues. If you read the status reports from both sides mechanical reliablity is about the same.

The difference is a systemic issue on the handling of wastage.

In the Luftwaffe, a Geschwader turning an aircraft into depot level maintenance still owned the airframe. This meant the Geschwader had a plane on the books they could not fly.

The RAF and USAF system enacted a one for one exchange above the unit level. If a plane needed depot level maintenance, the squadron drew a new airframe when the one in need of repair was turned in.
The units remained at strength while the aircraft was repaired. That airframe would then be issued to the next squadron when it was fixed. If the maintenance was squadron level then the plane stayed in the unit until it was fixed by their own guys.


All the best,

Crumpp

horseback
04-11-2007, 11:54 AM
Speaking as an offliner, I personally wouldn't want that feature; as an option, sure, for those who want it, but it's not for me.

I'm already hamstrung by AI gunners hyperoptimized for the convenience of the bomber-flying market; the last thing I need is a MiG or LaGG in my current VVS campaigns with a heavily yellowed canopy and windscreen (which I cannot open), a radiator that must always be kept wide open (and still doesn't work half the time), and landing gear that collapse spontaneously.

...and how does one propose to deal with the Hayate, Ki 100, Jack and N1K2 fans out there who would suddenly find their marvelous rides suddenly transformed into wheezing, sputtering jalopys?

It's an interesting concept, but it will cater to a relatively small group within the already small combat simming community.

cheers

horseback

JR_Greenhorn
04-11-2007, 11:54 AM
Even with historical data for availability and reliability, the biggest problem with simulating it in game is that these factors depend so heavily on how each side is doing in the war. Strategic bombing, attacks on supply convoys and merchant shipping, attrition to aircraft support operations, and many other factors all played key roles in how many reliable aircraft could be flown. The easy answer would be to model aircraft reliability and availability as historically as possible, then provide a switch to revert back to the "factory fresh" setup we have now. However, that wouldn't give enough flexibility to mission builders and campaign generators to allow for local conditions, fictional and/or "what if" scenarios, etc.

A good example of what I'm trying to convey is the US defense of the airfield seized on Guadalcanal. While US factories were largely undisturbed and US forces were generally well-supplied throughout the war, Guadalcanal was somewhat isolated for a time. Reinforcements were few and far between, and most aircraft repairs had to be done by using what was available on the island, such as salvaged parts from other aircraft. Disregard for one's engine and/or plane in a scenario like this could easily mean fewer planes in the air for the next mission. Conversely, US forces in general elsewhere in the world at the same time didn't suffer from such lack of supply and repair issues.

I feel that that is the standard that aircraft reliability must be implemented at, or not at all. That is, mission builders and campaign generators must have control over "random failures" to reflect what is going on in the area at the time. Certainly there should be a default value for each nation, based on historical data, but it should also be scalable and provide the option to turn it off completely.

horseback
04-11-2007, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My reading on the subject leads me to believe that there are several reliable sources for Commonwealth and US unit aircraft availability rates, and there are several German sources that indicate their 'up' rates were considerably lower. For example, Galland's biographies make it clear that the LW had real problems keeping its frontline fighter units over 60% operational, often not having the ability to get more than half their fighters on hand into the air, due to logistics problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is due to logistics not mechanical issues. If you read the status reports from both sides mechanical reliablity is about the same.

The difference is a systemic issue on the handling of wastage.

In the Luftwaffe, a Geschwader turning an aircraft into depot level maintenance still owned the airframe. This meant the Geschwader had a plane on the books they could not fly.

The RAF and USAF system enacted a one for one exchange above the unit level. If a plane needed depot level maintenance, the squadron drew a new airframe when the one in need of repair was turned in.
The units remained at strength while the aircraft was repaired. That airframe would then be issued to the next squadron when it was fixed. If the maintenance was squadron level then the plane stayed in the unit until it was fixed by their own guys.


All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The practical effect was still the same, and you will have to agree that the Allies won the logistics war quite decisively. US and Commonwealth units got the parts, fuel, lubricants and coolant they needed in a more timely manner, and in far more generous portions, than their Axis counterparts.

I've also long had the impression that the overall German engineering philosophy required a bit more 'care and feeding' than most Allied systems. Of course, that may be colored by my owning and maintaining a 1970 BMW 2002 for eight years in Hawaii and Southern California...

Wonderful car to drive, but it required constant minor adjustments and a steady stream of replacement parts and rebuild kits to keep it running, much less running right. If the 109 or 190 were remotely analogous, they probably needed more man hours of maintenance per flight hour than the Thunderbolt or Mustang (and about two thirds of what the Lightning needed).

cheers

horseback

WWSpinDry
04-11-2007, 12:24 PM
One of my co-workers, a full-time military historian, commented on something similar very recently. He cited one instance where lots of partially-built fighters were held up awaiting the hand-carved arm rest units called for in the spec, and how different German production values were from the American assembly line mass-produced/interchangeable parts philosophy. Trying to cannibalize a German fighter for major parts, such as as wing assembly, for example, was a major undertaking (often involving rivets and/or hand welds) whereas for a US maintenance team it would be a comparatively simple job of jacking and unbolting.

That's it: Henry Ford won WWII! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JR_Greenhorn
04-11-2007, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I've also long had the impression that the overall German engineering philosophy required a bit more 'care and feeding' than most Allied systems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And the Soviets took that philosophy even further. Everywhere you read, the Soviet domestic types are lauded as being designed specifically for harsh conditions and little maintenance.

I remember reading pilots' accounts discussing the improvement in "oil culture" that were required when Soviet squadrons started flying Allison-powered types like the P-39.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
...the 109 or 190...probably needed more man hours of maintenance per flight hour than the Thunderbolt or Mustang. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I seem to recall that the late war DB 600-series engines had a decreasingly smaller TBO as the engines were pushed harder and harder to deliver performance.

While the Allied standard bearers like the Merlin were also being pushed increasingly harder as the war progressed, there were also plenty of new engine designs both on the horizon and appearing on the fronts that could make that power much more reliably.

horseback
04-11-2007, 12:41 PM
"Oil culture' issues had more to do with the much tighter tolerances the new American engines than the radials found on the early war standard bearers. Part of the problem with US fighters operating in the Soviet Union was the lack of oil drainage points for taking out the oil nightly before it froze in the lines overnight.

Hub Zemke, who served as a Lend Lease observer/instructor in the Murmansk area before Pearl Harbor, mentioned that Soviet mechanics were less than scrupulous about keeping dirt and twigs out of the drained oil that they were storing overnight, and it caused him some lost sleep.

cheers

horseback

jasonbirder
04-11-2007, 02:28 PM
Of course its far more realistic to believe that all planes ran with perfect factory modelled performance, with no variability between individual planes, no gradual fade in performance as an engine or airframe aged and no reliability issues or system/component failures http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
04-11-2007, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSpinDry:
That's it: Henry Ford won WWII! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And a person wel known for anti-semitism.

How ironic.

Blutarski2004
04-11-2007, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
I've also long had the impression that the overall German engineering philosophy required a bit more 'care and feeding' than most Allied systems. Of course, that may be colored by my owning and maintaining a 1970 BMW 2002 for eight years in Hawaii and Southern California...

Wonderful car to drive, but it required constant minor adjustments and a steady stream of replacement parts and rebuild kits to keep it running, much less running right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I had a 1968 1600. The front wheel bearings were only good for about 5,000 miles per set (maybe it was the way I drove...). My PhD diploma in replacement of BMW front wheel bearings still hangs proudly on my wall at home ... ;-)

Otherwise a GREAT car.

horseback
04-11-2007, 06:33 PM
What about that rubber doughnut thingie between the transmission and the driveshaft? Mine fell apart every 2 years, and every two years, it DOUBLED in price (not to mention that it was an enormous pain to replace).

Yeah, they were GREAT cars. But my '73 Capri (I got the 2002 in '77) was better (well, I definitely got laid more often in it).

cheers

horseback

tools4foolsA
04-12-2007, 01:40 AM
I would love random failures and variable performance of planes in the game.

Could be a simple switch in the difficulty settings, so all whop don't like it are just one click away from disabling it.
****

Blutarski2004
04-12-2007, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
What about that rubber doughnut thingie between the transmission and the driveshaft? Mine fell apart every 2 years, and every two years, it DOUBLED in price (not to mention that it was an enormous pain to replace).

Yeah, they were GREAT cars. But my '73 Capri (I got the 2002 in '77) was better (well, I definitely got laid more often in it).

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... BMW was crazy about rubber doughnuts back then. As I recall, they used them to hang the exhaust system as well.

I only had to do the transmission doughnut once (along with the output bearing on the transmission). Those were the days when the only place you could obtain BMW parts was Hoffman Imports in NJ. And it was a matter of absolute faith that, whatever you needed, Hoffman had to order it from Germany with a 6 or 8 week lead time. We finally figured out that it was possible to cros-reference BMW bearings through the Timken catalog - much faster delivery and a decimal point position cheaper.

I never attempted to get laid in the 1600. I was afraid I'd hurt myself. My love coach was a '60 Olds 88 - a penthouse suite by comparison.

Aaaah, the memories.

horseback
04-12-2007, 07:11 PM
Well, Jersey's climate is probably a lot closer to Germany's than San Diego's climate is. Those things dried out and disintegrated pretty quickly down here.

Fortunately, my younger brother Bill was working in the parts department at Bill Luke Chrysler in Phoenix at the time while I was still in the Navy and poor as a churchmouse. They were right across the street from the BMW dealership. It was actually faster to write and send him a check than it was to order the parts at the Honolulu BMW dealership while I was at Pearl Harbor (our working theory was that Hans, the greasy looking guy at the back of the shop, swam to Germany and back with the parts order in his teeth, thereby justifying the incredible markup).

Bill got me my parts at dealer cost for a long time, but then he went and moved to Stockton to work for our brother in law's jewelry shop (he's now running a classic Mustangs shop up there, and making money hand over fist).

As for getting laid in a Beemer or a Capri, a reclining bucket seat, youth and enthusiasm (and a lack of my own apartment) made it a lot easier back in 1981 than I would find it today.

cheers

horseback

ImpStarDuece
04-12-2007, 09:16 PM
I'm wondering how you would model something like the increasing mechanical reliability of the Merlin in 1939-1940 or the increasing reliability of the Sabre in 1941-1943?

To take the Sabre as an example: the TBO (time between overhaul) in mid-1941, after the Typhoon was first introduced, was just 25 hours flying time. Engine overheating was very common, as the Sabre had a habit of distorting, melting and eating its sleeve valves. Initial Napier sleves could distort in as little as 20 hours. The maintenance and engine fitters were also treating it like a Merlin, not like the 1 ton monster it was, with accompanying poor reliability.

By early 1942 the Sabre was up to 40 hours TBO, as maintenance crew and fitters gained experiance and Napier changed the metalurgy of the sleeve valves. Past the middle of 1942 this climbed to 50 hours TBO, not much of an improvement, despite further refinements in maintenance and construction.

Finally, the Air Ministry got Bristol, which had a wealth of experience with the sleeve valved Hercules, involved in the Sabre engine. They discovered several flaws in the metalurgy and construction of the valves themselves and then realised that they could adapt the sleeve valves from the Taurus. By the beginning of 1943, the Sabre TBO was 150 hours, and was later increased to 175 hours for the IIA.

Modified Taurus valves in a Sabre would go at least 120 hours at full throttle before the first signs of distorting. Bristol later improved the valves so that in early 1943 Napier ran a Sabre II at 2000 hp continously for 3,000 hours in an effort to get the Air Minsitry to produce Sabres in favour of the Merlin and Griffon. By the end of the war Sabre TBO was about 200 hours, still less than half of the 500 TBO of later Merlin marks.

Kettenhunde
04-12-2007, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I've also long had the impression that the overall German engineering philosophy required a bit more 'care and feeding' than most Allied systems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The BMW801D2 had a 5/1 maintenance scheduale with a " minor overhaul" every 200 hours. After 5 minor overhauls the motor was sent to depot level maintenance for a major overhaul.

The instructions for the minor overhaul are:

1. Check compression
2. Change oil - filter
3. Change plugs
4. Inspect and adjust KG settings as required
5. Inspect adjust valves settings
6. Inspect overall condition of motor and replace components as required.

Nothing really sinster.

All the best,

Crumpp

stalkervision
04-12-2007, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by drose01:
I was reading about the Ki84 series and again and again it was stated that in general that the aircraft was mechanically unreliable from plane to plane.

While one copy might be stellar, another might perform significantly worse.

The same was true to a lesser extent in other planes as well.

It seems like it might be possible to model this in-game. Any plane selected would have a random performance variation, depending on the type.

Maybe 1 in 3 Ki84s, for instance, would overheat or otherwise be susceptible to various malfunctions or performance problems. Planes that had better reliability would be much less likely to have these problems.

If players didn't want to use this feature, they could turn it off in the settings. But it might further the "realism" of the sim to model what was a significant historical factor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree but I want one important inclusion. I would like to see actual visual effects to go along with this feature such as oil coating the windscreen, smoke in the cockpit and the random leaking glycol effect along with an occasional piston flying out of the engine cowling. An engine craping out is just not that exciting without some actual visual framwork to go along with it...

PikeBishop
04-13-2007, 03:57 AM
Dear All,
I can't see the point really.....I want to see the BEST that an aircraft can do with ALL types in ALL cases. Besides history is written by the victors and so can be biased. I noted that the only suggestion of USA fighters being troublesome was in a post about the songs servicemen sang about their aircraft. I also read that up to 25% of thunderbolts at any one time were unservicable due to engine problems but that quote was difficult to find so don't ask me to find it again!!! I did know about the Typhoon/Sabre problems but I doubt if the Germans ever knew and I'm certain that when a pilot came up against an opponent with a superior aircraft I think that the possibility of the opponents engine not performing maximally due to poor maintenance was the LAST thing on that pilot's mind!
Best regards,
SLP

Blutarski2004
04-13-2007, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PikeBishop:
Dear All,
I can't see the point really.....I want to see the BEST that an aircraft can do with ALL types in ALL cases. Besides history is written by the victors and so can be biased. I noted that the only suggestion of USA fighters being troublesome was in a post about the songs servicemen sang about their aircraft. I also read that up to 25% of thunderbolts at any one time were unservicable due to engine problems but that quote was difficult to find so don't ask me to find it again!!! I did know about the Typhoon/Sabre problems but I doubt if the Germans ever knew and I'm certain that when a pilot came up against an opponent with a superior aircraft I think that the possibility of the opponents engine not performing maximally due to poor maintenance was the LAST thing on that pilot's mind!
Best regards,
SLP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Haven't seen anything about P-47 engine reliability problems, except for wiring harness issues in the earliest models. But there has been plenty written about teething and maintenance troubles of other US fighter - P-38 in particular. And the considerable teething problems of the ealy P-51's have been well described also.

As to modelling a/c reliability, the subject reaches well beyond issues of mechanical design. Ground crew training, availability of spare parts, nature of service facilities, prevailing weather conditions, operational tempo - all were powerful influences upon readiness rates. A good example of this is the difference in operational readiness rates of F4F fighters in the Pacific theater. Wildcats operating from CV's had an average availability rate of 90+ pct; Wildcats operateing from Guadalcanal during 1942 were lucky to maintain 60+ pct readiness rates.

And, from what I've read, the vast majority of airborne reliability problems resulted in aborts prior to enemy contact. If reliability MUST be modelled, varying unit readiness rates and/or setting arbitrary mission abort percentages prior to contact would seem to be a much simpler and more cost-effective approach than attempting to model MTBF rates on a real-time in-flight basis for a half-dozen different a/c sub-systems.

Aaron_GT
04-13-2007, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My reading on the subject leads me to believe that there are several reliable sources for Commonwealth and US unit aircraft availability rates, and there are several German sources that indicate their 'up' rates were considerably lower. For example, Galland's biographies make it clear that the LW had real problems keeping its frontline fighter units over 60% operational, often not having the ability to get more than half their fighters on hand into the air, due to logistics problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, art of that was due to the failure to produce enough spares. The other factors are operating conditions including being bombed and strafed more I would guess.

horseback
04-13-2007, 11:37 AM
First, let us agree that aircraft are more than just engines, and maintenance and repair of said aircraft actually involves things like airframe, fire control, cooling, hydraulics, and lubrication systems. Being able to easily reach these systems has a tremendous effect upon how long it takes to service these systems, and hence, their efficiency in operation.

Second, let us agree that logistics is as important to waging war as any single weapon, but also that it lacks the glamour of a supersonic fighter, and hence is often ignored by nonprofessionals, like the politicians that authorize military funding. Attacking the other guy's training and logistics systems is a part of strategic warmaking as old as warfare itself, and no amount of whining about the compounding disadvantages of the other guy effectively constricting your supply flow (and your failure to do likewise to him) is going to make it 'unfair', or your warmaking efforts more 'noble'.

You're supposed to make it harder for the other guy.

cheers

horseback

crazyivan1970
04-13-2007, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by drose01:
I was reading about the Ki84 series and again and again it was stated that in general that the aircraft was mechanically unreliable from plane to plane.

While one copy might be stellar, another might perform significantly worse.

The same was true to a lesser extent in other planes as well.

It seems like it might be possible to model this in-game. Any plane selected would have a random performance variation, depending on the type.

Maybe 1 in 3 Ki84s, for instance, would overheat or otherwise be susceptible to various malfunctions or performance problems. Planes that had better reliability would be much less likely to have these problems.

If players didn't want to use this feature, they could turn it off in the settings. But it might further the "realism" of the sim to model what was a significant historical factor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All that is great and everything and applies to many planes and would deffinitely add nice touch to the sim.... but... after all it all boils down to resources... Also keep in mind that every aircraft had its own unique problems. Kind of hard to introduce with 300 planes available http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Just a thought.

JR_Greenhorn
04-13-2007, 12:33 PM
As with trying to model anything as complex as we're trying to discuss here, I think a decision would have to be made regarding just how detailed to get, how far reaching the model should be, and how to account for a myriad of other factors.

Should each plane be affected in flight, based on both historical factors and a degree of randomness? Should the number of planes available in a campaign or to a squadron be variable, again based on historical factors and some randomness, but also upon local factors related to that particular campaign?


I think it's indicative of the problem in that we haven't even agreed on a single term for what we're discussing. Words like reliability, random failures, availability, readiness, and so on are all being used to describe different facets of the main concept being discussed. However, each of those words means something different, and at this point, a lot of those words mean different things to different people.


A lot of us here look at specific plane types or variants, and want to experience the well-documented problems specific to that plane in game--and there's nothing wrong with that. Conversely, as Ivan mentions, there is a fleet of 300 planes (and hopefully SoW will reach that point someday too), and it's not feasible or even possible to model to that degree on each one.

Think of the openable canopies on some of the PF planes. It's great to have that feature on the planes that have it, but it also makes it feel like the planes that don't have that feature modeled are missing something. And openable canopies don't have near the affect on gameplay that modeling reliability would. My point is that it would have to be all-encompassing, or not at all.


I think the only thing that pretty much everyone agrees on is the option to turn something like this off, should it be included someday.