PDA

View Full Version : Historic Aircraft performance



Urist
02-13-2004, 11:39 PM
Would it make sense to have a difficulty setting that gives the aircraft in the game their historic performance instead of the optimal ones we have?

An example is the Ki-84, which performed nowhere near its peak in the actual war due to poor quality fuel.

I don't know if this is worth much online, but it could make offline play more interesting and realistic.

What do you think?

Urist
02-13-2004, 11:39 PM
Would it make sense to have a difficulty setting that gives the aircraft in the game their historic performance instead of the optimal ones we have?

An example is the Ki-84, which performed nowhere near its peak in the actual war due to poor quality fuel.

I don't know if this is worth much online, but it could make offline play more interesting and realistic.

What do you think?

ucanfly
02-13-2004, 11:44 PM
Ok I'll bite. IMO full realism should be fully realistic not fully optimistic. The less than realistic (easier) settings should be for those who do not desire reality to the fullest possible in the game.

Urist
02-14-2004, 12:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
Ok I'll bite. IMO full realism should be fully realistic not fully optimistic. The less than realistic (easier) settings should be for those who do not desire reality to the fullest possible in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have any real problem with the performance of any of the aircraft in the game, even if they are optimistic..

But it would be "neat" to fly these planes in the conditions they would have seen combat in.

On the other hand, it is a whole other flight model to work out for some aircraft. And others were just plain unreliable, which again could be a nice addition for an offline campain.

But having a 109-K4 engine self destruct shortly after take off in an online mission would suck.

Not to mention gun jams, poor quality airframes falling apart during hard manouvers.

Offline sure, would be a fun challenge, online I don't think so.

Blottogg
02-14-2004, 06:43 AM
Oleg had mentioned during one of the BoB interviews the feature of aircraft wear and cumulative battle damage. I'm afraid we'll have to wait 'till then for that level of individual airframe performance variance, though it's good to know he and the crew have this in mind too, and are working on it.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

AaronGT
02-14-2004, 09:45 AM
For campaigns modelling reliability
and wear and tear would be nice.
If the support for online campaigns
is good it might be fun to have
wear and tear, reliability and supply
modelled.

I think there is an opportunity for
Oleg to manage a persistent
online campaign for some modest
fee (say $25 a year) that provides:

A "what if" BoB setting

Detailed supply (limited production
of aircraft, planes deterioate in
use)

Reliability, including less reliability
if your airbase is damaged (less
ground crew/repair shops
available)

Strategy - people playing LW
and RAF, directing production,
deployment, raids, etc. which
generate missions.

A system of mission subscriptions:
you let the system know when
and what you are interested in
and it emails you about the
mission(s)

Secure mission briefing rooms.

Shortened day so that every
timezone can play day or night
missions a couple of times a week
and/or two parallel campaigns.

The community could probably do
this, I just see a lot of online
campaign fragmentation at the
moment, so maybe a single set
up would help.

There are some complexities -
like how to manage planes and
personas but allow each squadron
in the game world do a realistic
number of missions. I'd propose
that the game world continues
and players just have the ability
to select Group Captain Charles
Smythe on joining a mission, but
with the understanding that he
might have flown and died as AI
the previous day. You'd track your
personal stats, and could follow
Smythe's log book online.

Magister__Ludi
02-16-2004, 06:25 AM
Problem with Ki-84 is that it is modelled with 115/145 fuel, which was used only on last ww2 generation of P-47 and F4U. This fuel was very difficult to handle and its use was abbandoned after the war. With 100 octane fuel grade, which is by no means a poor fuel, Ki-84 barelly reached 400mph. With poor quality fuel available to the Japanese performance was even less impressive.
No Ki-84 should be faster than 400mph in level flight.

PikeBishop
02-16-2004, 08:58 AM
Can I just point out that I favour the notion that the best possible performance figure are used for 2 reasons. 1. It would make the game incredibly hard as almost all aircraft had maintenance problems engines etc. As people who play on the net are not trained to behave as real pilots did (i.e. no fear of dying) or morale effects, including cooperative methods its clear that we do not have accurate 'pilot' models yet.
2. If you use the best possible data in every case you will get a much better comparative database as regards to real combat similarities as the aircraft performance makes up for pilot behaviour limitations within the game.

PE_Tigar
02-16-2004, 09:11 AM
I'm all for wear&tear and cumulative dammage. Also, online the squadrons should be given an airbase and an appropriate number of airplanes with realistic resupply. When there are no airplanes left that day--tough luck, no flying boys http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. I think it would be fairly simple to implement. Also, it would favor squads that get more their planes to base at the end of the day, which should also count.

Aaron_GT
02-16-2004, 10:48 AM
I agree - it would lead to more 'realistic'
flying as part of a persistent campaign, perhaps.

But of course people would still be free to
brew up their own online campaign games or
DF servers to cope with a range of options
from 'realistic', careful, strategic games all
the way to fun 'air quake' games.

XyZspineZyX
02-16-2004, 10:56 AM
This is always a hard one.

One the one hand, a plane such as the Ki-84 or the Ki-61 Tony scream for modeling of their mechanical quirks, because, without them, they are uncharacteristically good.

On the other hand, modeling random (even statistically based) failures of guns, engines, systems and maintenance would really chap a lot of hides in practice.

Imagine being in an online war, and you're the section leader, and all your squadies are there, and you take off for an all-important mission; 35 km out your engine develops "problems" that cause you to have to scrub and go home. You're out for the week, since the missions are flown once a week. That'd piss *anyone* off.

I can see it for offline campaigns more, but online...oooh, that's a real two-edged sword.

LEXX_Luthor
02-16-2004, 11:02 AM
I am sure it would be Optional. If so, everybody would be Happy. I am undecided myself. I enjoyed the random failures in Flaker 1.0, but the above post about comparative database makes sense. Lets assume we can see that database with the Option turned off.

__________________
RUSSIAN lexx website http://www.lexx.ufo.ru/members.shtml
Stanly is a moron, kai is a walking dead beet, Xev just want sex.
:
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

PikeBishop
02-16-2004, 05:05 PM
Again.....can I ask the question who says that these aircraft did have the quirks you speak of. Where does this information come from..... except from those that might have wished for the propaganda. I'm sure that the Japanese did not go around saying that their aircraft were crap...but the Americans just might. Note also that it is only in recent times that we hear about mechanical problems with P47's P51's and F4U's not to mention the poor handling qualities of some.............propaganda is a pain in the arse and it is very difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Red_Baroness
02-16-2004, 07:57 PM
One's best bet for figuring out actual a/d performance is to consult some of the really good books out there on the subject itself. One book in particular "Complete book of World War II Combat Aircraft" or any of the Osprey series on the aircraft is usually quite sufficient. Also, interviewing the people who actually flew the planes (though this is becoming harder and harder as time progresses) is also an option.

As for the uber-realism; I would vote mostly against it as it would make MP game play difficult at best and then once the fun is out of the game, no-one will play it.

But, FMs could stand to be improved/revised; and not just those of the Axis powers; I had mentioned it in another thread that has since left the building, so to say, and I won't mention it again to prevent an aura of tediousness coloring my posts. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Take care

Red

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

Urist
02-16-2004, 09:51 PM
Hmmm...

Alright, try this on.....

In OFFLINE campaigns/missions or maybe coop missions online (dogfights would be hell with this, unless they were heavily scripted ones), have changeable reliability attributes for the different aircraft.

You could have preset historic ones, perfect or "optimal" settings, and ones you can set yourself.

Select the fuel quality the aircraft will use, and how reliable the various compenents of the aircraft are. Sort of like what Flight Simulator does, where you have sliders that affect various random failures. Have it as a sort of tab in the QMB for your aircraft and as a difficulty setting in the campain missions.

You could put it into dogfight servers where the various aircraft default to the perfect setting, but suckers for punishment can try their hand at a historic Ki-84 and get extra points for doing it (or not). Sort of a handicap I guess. Adds something else for people to complain about online though and adds another complication, the key here is "optional". If you consider yourself an uber pilot try on a 109-K4/flying grenade with wings that were attached first thing monday morning by slave labour and see how well you do.

It would also give you the option of changing settings you don't find to be realistic when your flying offline to see just what it was like. Tweaking the reliability of certain aircraft in the QMB for fun. Have the sliders top out at what their optimal settings are though, so it isn't possible to get an aircraft that is unrealistically reliable, just what it would be able to do in perfect conditions (in theory what we have now).

Just some ideas... I'm not saying this NEEDS to be in the next update or anything.

GvSAP_Dart
02-16-2004, 10:24 PM
You'd need to take it one step further...to the unit level.

For example, the 2nd Guards up by Murmansk were just crazy about "oil culture," filtering and re-filtering their oil and fuel before putting it into engines, a fact that gave them better-than-average reliability and higher performance.

Likewise their armament shop.

Having a leader like Safanov who wasn't content to just work with pilots - he was no stranger to all aspects of the squadron - made them even more deadly than most.

____________________________________
http://www.darts-page.com for more foolishness

Urist
02-16-2004, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GvSAP_Dart:
You'd need to take it one step further...to the unit level.

For example, the 2nd Guards up by Murmansk were just crazy about "oil culture," filtering and re-filtering their oil and fuel before putting it into engines, a fact that gave them better-than-average reliability and higher performance.

Likewise their armament shop.

Having a leader like Safanov who wasn't content to just work with pilots - he was no stranger to all aspects of the squadron - made them even more deadly than most.

____________________________________
http://www.darts-page.com for more foolishness<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forget my idea... I can see it now...

"The historic settings for the 2nd Murmansk guards are WAY undermodelled, they filtered there oil and fuel and had WAY better reliability the what is in the game! I am going to stop playing IL2 until this is fixed! I read a book five years ago by some Carson guy that proves what Oleg has done in this game is WRONG!!!"

Can't wait...

Stanger_361st
02-17-2004, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
This is always a hard one.

One the one hand, a plane such as the Ki-84 or the Ki-61 Tony scream for modeling of their mechanical quirks, because, without them, they are uncharacteristically good.

On the other hand, modeling random (even statistically based) failures of guns, engines, systems and maintenance would really chap a lot of hides in practice.

Imagine being in an online war, and you're the section leader, and all your squadies are there, and you take off for an all-important mission; 35 km out your engine develops "problems" that cause you to have to scrub and go home. You're out for the week, since the missions are flown once a week. That'd piss *anyone* off.

I can see it for offline campaigns more, but online...oooh, that's a real two-edged sword.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with ya Stiglr. I think it would piss you off with random failures, then some people will blame the damage models suck. Imagine a plane that is model that way will take less damage because of wear and tear modeld now all of sudden the DM sucks.

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2004, 04:22 AM
Wear and tear plus battlefield conditions could provide deeper immersion in campaigns both online and off. Part of your briefing is a report on conditions in general and your plane in particular. Last mission you tapped heavily on the engine and your crew chief and mechanic have some words for you as they were unable to get everything back in total shape. Your CO has no replacement plane for you to burn up this time out so now you don't fly so aggressively. How do you handle it now and how do you fly next time when the plane is running better after some all night love and care from the ground crew, who don't like you so much for lack of sleep? Did you stop the bombers from destroying the supply convoy anyway? Maybe you're not so bad but still now you have to move slower. C'est la vie!

Whoever said that it's just lately that word of problems with Jugs, Mustangs and other US planes and conditions needs to get out and read more instead of watching gung-ho TV for information! I've read accounts written decades ago by pilots in the field where things were not so great. Yeah, flying out of Britain was very good on the maintenance, supply and replacements end but not everywhere did the US enjoy all that. Try reading about the Pacific side of the war and in particular for nasty try reading about how it was for the Marine aviators at Henderson Field. Picnic don't begin to describe it! They went up in planes that had redlined items and they did it day in and out. Will your plane take off? Maybe. Will it quit before you have enough alt to bail? Maybe. Some guys died that way, not just one here or there either. Would your plane even start, or the guns fire? Roll the dice. Those guys flew on guts and generally on malaria pills and damned little sleep between the heat and being bombed or overflown at night. Later in the war it got easier but before then it was hell.
Try reading on the P-39 in the Pacific, or the Wildcats. Try looking up pilots songs about the planes. All kinds of problems in the early models that had to get reported, figured out and fixed. Heat, cold, fumes, jams, gear dropping enough to cause drag.... Every last bit of that can be found in books older than some people here, if you look.


Neal

02-17-2004, 05:20 AM
There's a reason why game developers use the theoretical maximum performance for each planes.

It's not they're stupid they aren't implementing maintenance issues.

PikeBishop
02-17-2004, 09:02 AM
In reply to the Neal chappie what you have said is exactly what I was implying. The fact that for probably every aircraft it could be said that it was a very good performer....but in the next breath go into a long list of problems. And this did not apply only to Japanese aircraft. I am well aware of the events surrounding the struggle for Guadalcanal but as I am pretty ancient now, as a teenager the information that one could get really comprised of are'nt the British and USA men and machines fantastic and the nasty Germans and Japs were crap. (No-one else was mentioned) By recent I mean the last 30 years. Sorry for the confusion.

Gato-Loco
02-17-2004, 12:10 PM
I think it is a great idea. I only play offline, and I agree that for some online playing it probably wouldn't work. But it would be neat to have random mechanical failures and fuel quality. I think it adds to the inmersion factor.

Aaron_GT
02-17-2004, 01:56 PM
Jamming being modelled would be good too.

Also the possibility of belts having been
misfed by armourers on the ground, or guns
being slightly less than functional. It was
not uncommon for bomber crews to test their
guns well before combat, for example.

For the Battle of Britain with the possibilty
of multiple sorties being flown on the same
day by the same aircraft a scheme to allow
this compressed timescale to be taken into
account would be good.

if (time_to_arm &lt; X) chance_of_arming_error=0.1;

and so on.

Or

engine_damage -= number_ground_crew_per_plane * ground_crew_efficiency * ground_crew_morale * repair_time;

You could even go as far as some squadrons
did and devote that ground crew time to the
star pilots' planes and let the average pilot
cope with what time they have left over.

You could go overboard with this of course!

WWMaxGunz
02-17-2004, 05:58 PM
Pike, old man....

The last book I read on Guadalcanal was written in the 50's. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And there's other accounts that not everything was just so dating right back into the war. Like the early Mustang gun jams until a revision changed the ammo path, wasn't that the B models? There was grousing about that printed although printed post-war (you don't tell your enemy what to exploit!) was out by the 50's.

I'm not ancient like you, haven't quite hit 50 yet! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Still having a hard time believing all this time went by and where did it go, by 2000-some things should have been different. Sorry for thinking you'd not been long since poking your head out of the shell!

One thing is sources. What we read when we are young sometimes tends to be written for the young. I dug for real starting about 7th grade and did read more and more real as years went by and my abilities got better. I did start with WWI aviation when I got into planes though, 70-71. And yes, finding better libraries than the ones at school helped on occasion but our high school library wasn't too bad, just thin in some areas.


Neal

WUAF_Badsight
02-17-2004, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gato-Loco:
But it would be neat to have random mechanical failures and fuel quality. I think it adds to the inmersion factor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this is supposed to be in 1C:Maddox games next sim

the Battle of Britian

Urist
02-17-2004, 11:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gato-Loco:
But it would be neat to have random mechanical failures and fuel quality. I think it adds to the inmersion factor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this is supposed to be in 1C:Maddox games next sim

the Battle of Britian<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but... but....

I can't wait that long.... I'll be 30, married and have some annoying kid by the time Bob comes out and won't be able to play video games any more...

Wait, what am I saying... That'll never happen..

PikeBishop
02-18-2004, 01:28 PM
Dear Neal,
To begin with I accept your snivelling apology.....just don't do it again boy.....or it'll be a detention for you......!
It just bothers me...just how much of this info is not just a case of people just going 'oh well..we'll just say that these machines are good but just not quite good enough to match our superb designers/engineers/pilots or whatever'.
For example I remember the kill ratio of the F86a/Mig15 soon after Korea as 1:16 but now mysteriously it has been reduced to 1:2...a much more realistic figure. I tend to feel that, OK the Japs were always under pressure after Midway with supplies and mainenance, but we are really comparing relative MERITS of the final product, not 'what can we do to make it underperform to the best of the machines capability' and I still think that if you can convince people that your Patriot missiles are downing 60% of the Iraqui SCUDS and 10 years later we find that precisly none were destroyed what can one believe. Let the maths prevail!!!!!

SLP

WWMaxGunz
02-19-2004, 12:35 AM
You don't have to tell me about the Patriots, I figured that out in 1991 when they couldn't actually say right out they destroyed Scuds. And the 16:1 Korean thing... that was as much juggling as lies IMHO. I don't know if 2:1 is really so accurate, it may have been higher but unproveable. I don't take either sides word for shot-downs or lost.

Still, you wanna take numbers then consider the IJN at the beginning of the war and even after Midway outnumbered and on paper looked much superior to the combined Allied navies in the Pacific and yet they were not able to push the Allies out and steadily lost ground. The Japanese flying out of Rabaul seemed to enjoy a base and planes advantage for quite a long time and yet they still lost. They had enough strength that the main US fleet bypassed them and it was up to secondary forces to finally take them after a long struggle where, yes, the Japanese had the worst conditions and then some.

There was also New Guinea.

The Japanese had probably the finest soldiers in the world at the start and into WWII. That's something I never read about until the early-mid 70's. Everyone had elites who were tops but even the Japanese regulars were hard. Only troops I've read about maybe better were the Finns who some writers considered were all elite, just not equipped as well as they should have been nor enough of them. Look who they held off for a long time at very bad odds! Still, when you have avalanches on your side the numbers tilt a bit.

Keep looking though, not everyone kept to the party line even during or not long after the war.

Not sniveling, just trying to be fair. How old did you say you are?


Neal

PikeBishop
02-19-2004, 10:46 AM
Dear Neal,

Okay...not snivelling........I'm 55 by the way. You have to admit that there were two main factors in the way of the Japs and both of them were down to pure luck, not that I would of wished that the little buggers could have won you understand!!
The first was that naughty Nagumo did not carry out Yamoto's wish for the second wave...that would have caught the U.S. carriers at Pearl Harbour....then the US would had to have sued for peace being unable to support any ground invasions......and interesting world situation would have developed??
The second was the incredible bad luck the little buggers suffered at Midway......like winning the lottery in reverse....what else could have gone wrong.
The only problem with this of course is that had this happened there would have been less likelyhood of many of these very potent fighters coming to fruition unless of course the struggle continued with Britain china Australia and of course Russia! Mind you the Japs were definitely ones for Empire building so who knows......