PDA

View Full Version : Mechanical failures



Yellonet
10-20-2004, 10:57 AM
Taken from this (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=6161073232) thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
I'd add that in any PTO sim, the allies in any aircraft will do better than RL in the EARLY WAR because:

1. No mechanical failures (US caliber .50 guns jammed a lot early on. More often than not you fought with a fraction of the guns you took off with.

2. Everyone knows what NOT to do.

In the LATE WAR, the Japanese aircraft will do better for 2 reasons:

1. No mechanical failures. Late war IJN/AF planes were excellent in theory, but were extremely prone to various and sundry mechanical problems which grounded them, or kept them from performing at 100%. Not a problem in a sim.

2. Pilot skill will be constant, instead of constantly deteriorating on average.

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I really would want mechanical failures as a realism option.

Why the hell not?
Other, much older sims have pulled it off - and got it to work really well!

Red Baron, while not the greatest example, had jamming guns.
AotP had dud torpedoes, which is a MUST in a PTO sim.

Of course a function like this should be much more complex than just a on/off option and then a random function that decides what breaks.
You should be able to set on/off for all the different part that can fail and set a time/random time for failure and how likely in percent it is that the selected part will fail.

LEXX_Luthor
10-20-2004, 11:09 AM
I heard a form of this will be in BoB. Including structural failure from previous damage in a campaign. Sounds interesting. Production quality needs careful attention because a Dynamic Campaign may allow late war Luftwaffe and Japanese planes to not decrease in Quality. On the other hand, early war Soviet aircraft Quality may not depend on dynmamic campaign as they start the WAR at low quality, well at least Yaks, LaGGS, and Migs anyway, the older planes were very reliable but the newer ones were rushed into production in 1941.

Yellonet
10-20-2004, 12:02 PM
Comon people! Can't you see this is important?
Where are all the realism dudes?

Tater-SW-
10-20-2004, 12:10 PM
It's important, but isn't likely (understatement) to happen in this engine. Some day, in another sim, maybe. It really is complicated. In the meantime, you have to tweak missions in terms of planes aloft, and AI skill to get something like this. For immersion, you could have a flight of 3, with a follower as a lone plane---work the waypoints so he is flying your wing, then have him turn and RTB for a mechanical problem. That's about as close as we'll get.

tater

LEXX_Luthor
10-20-2004, 12:18 PM
Few posts here, most likely because realistic discussion of mechanical failure from production quality can only come with discussion of the course of the war and that is not fixed as a dynamic campaign unfolds.

BfHeFwMe
10-20-2004, 01:00 PM
You want to get excited about mechanical failures, why?

We don't even have reasonable combat damage modeling yet, has a long way to go in the basics there. Things like a hit in one wing tank also drains the other wing and the reserves, that's basic stuff and completely messed. Or one wing getting hit knocks out it's aileron and the other wings 100% of the time, which is impossible on a real airplane. Lets get the simple and basic necessities like some reasonable damage modeling done first.

Tater-SW-
10-20-2004, 01:13 PM
I'd think no discussion because it is so unlikely to happen in this game engine.

tater

Yellonet
10-20-2004, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
You want to get excited about mechanical failures, why?

We don't even have reasonable combat damage modeling yet, has a long way to go in the basics there. Things like a hit in one wing tank also drains the other wing and the reserves, that's basic stuff and completely messed. Or one wing getting hit knocks out it's aileron and the other wings 100% of the time, which is impossible on a real airplane. Lets get the simple and basic necessities like some reasonable damage modeling done first. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's true, but I don't see these functions as rivals by any means. Don't care in which order they are fixed, just that they are.

And Tater, sadly I think your right.

Gato__Loco
10-20-2004, 03:49 PM
I'd love to see this option. It has been discussed before, and yes, there are several older sims that have it (icluding microsoft's flight simulator).
I think there are several ways to implement this. The easier way would be to have random malfunctions, with no relationship to what happened in previous missions. This should be relatively easy to implement with this engine, because the damage models are already there. The code already includes a way to indicate if some part of your plane is not working properly. Now, the only way to get something damaged is if you get hit by a bullet. But you could include some code to have the same damage occurring at random times, with no relationship with enemy fire. Of course, I'm talking about small things... not wings falling off or holes in your fuselage. I mean that you could have guns and landing gear jammed, overheating engines, malfunctioning instruments (altimeter for example), etc. This should be an optional feature, maybe as an on/off option or maybe with a parameter (say probability of malfunction 0-20-30-60-80-100%).
I think it adds to the realism of the sim. Image coming back from a mission, everything is cool, and then...just before landing... you find out that your gear is not coming down.
I'm with you on this one Yellonet!

Eraser_tr
10-20-2004, 04:42 PM
Hmmm I thought this was already modeled in FB? I remember several times I've flown missions and my engine craps out on my without ever taking any fire, overheating or anything, or do my planes just hate me?

Gato__Loco
10-20-2004, 04:47 PM
I don't think is modeled. What planes were you flying?

Mashie_Nibblick
10-20-2004, 04:55 PM
For me, mechanical failures, bird strikes, realistic preflight and startup sequencesand what have you, all come down to one element that, to me, is key in any game or sim: IMMERSION. Immersion is the key. Anything to increase my already intense experience of this sim is desirable. Even if that does mean having to ditch because of bung magnetos or whatnot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

heywooood
10-20-2004, 08:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eraser_tr:
Hmmm I thought this was already modeled in FB? I remember several times I've flown missions and my engine craps out on my without ever taking any fire, overheating or anything, or do my planes just hate me? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

---------------------------------------

you might be a victim of negative G induced engine stalls when you are piloting a non fuel-injected plane (I-16 or P11c or Gladiator or Hurri..etc..)

Gunner_361st
10-20-2004, 09:32 PM
Sure, mechanical failures. Right up there with pilot fatigue from too many High-G manuevers and pilot sickness/hallucination (flying off all those pacific islands swarming with tropical diseases!)

Great ideas, but very likely not going to be implemented because of lack of importance. I agree with an early poster... More realistic flight and damage modeling coupled with *Dynamic Weather* would be a real tasty treat and should have priority over other more minor things.

Gunner of the 361st vFG

WUAF_Badsight
10-20-2004, 10:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yellonet:
Comon people! Can't you see this is important?
Where are all the realism dudes? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no not at all in FB

its not a good enough game engine , i mean look at how its performed across the board in each patch

BoB on the other hand . . . . can you say "advanced" ?