Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by [TLC]YIPPEE

  1. 1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:


    OK, maybe I misunderstood your post.  What exactly does 




    I means this coversation is this thread was never framed into either or. So it made no sense to suddenly act as though it was. 

    2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:


    A lot of things don't make sense to you, apparently.

    You right. I cant understand things that dont make sense. 

    5 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:


    Do you even do multiplayer in Il-2?  I can't find the stats of anyone named "Rattlesnake" on any of the primary IL-2 MP servers.

    Complains about gaslighting


    Resorts to ad hominem. 

  2. 4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:


    When you didn't have enough money to finance your own WW2 flight sim.

    This doesnt even make sense. 

    3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:


    No, not kidding at all.  I always look up the stats of know-it-alls, to determine if they have any credibility.

    Oh yes, because my record in a video game has anything what-so-ever to do with what is realistic and what is good game design. 






    I mean have a look people. As if this is relevant at all. 

  3. 2 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:


    Of course you don't want the need to ever have to pay attention to engine restrictions.  You only fly German, you rarely come back alive, your K/D averages out to about 1 to 1 according to your WoL stats.  I'm sure you would love to have an extra 14 minutes of max power guaranteed.

    What, your losing the argument so you look up my WoL stats? You gotta be kidding me. 

  4. 1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

    If you had to make a choice between relaxed engine limits like @SeaSerpent said or keeping the current system we have, what would you choose?


    If I had to choose it would be SeaSerpents idea because the current engine limits in-game are much more restrictive and unrealistic than his system would make.

    When did I get shipwrecked and forced into this dictum? 


    My choice is neither. I want no limits or so much WEP it doesnt matter. 

  5. 2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:




    2. I agree but this will likely never happen. You can't have realistic engines and force the player to fly a certain way at the same time, you have to choose either a realistic engine or a gamey mechanic.

    Ok.....SO? RNG should be gone. By that logic, time limits themselves would be ok because they already exist. 


    Your right we cant have both. So just remove the timers and replace them with.....Nothing. 

  6. 5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

    So why are you against it? The RNG is already in-game yet you are afraid of RNG? Doesn't make any sense.

    What am I supposed to be for it? 


    The current system is stupid, as are any RNG mechanics. As a rule, RNG is a stupid way of doing things in a game. Especially as I said before, you are doing it to model something you cant have. It makes no sense to sacrifice the totally realistic performance of the engine to add some "nod" to the operational environment. 


    Second: Any RNG system with a high enough chance to have and effect would be happening to frequently to be "realistic" and any RNG system with a realistic number of failures would be so low as to be totally meaningless and you might as well not do it at all. 


    And again, why should this only apply to engines? Why not wings, factory standards, etc?

  7. 5 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

    For all of those that are too dense to understand what SeaSerpent is trying to say I'll try and break it down for you.



    Currently in-game there is an rng system that has random failure the longer you go over the engine time limits. So in-game your engine doesn't fail exactly at 1 second over, it can be one minute or even 2-3 minutes over the limit before your engine fails.


    What SeaSerpent is saying is that the limits should be relaxed. So instead of the engine failing 1-2 min the chance could be much lower, so this way you could potentially push it 4-5 maybe even 10 mins over the limit without a failure.


    I'll try to show an example:


    Current system.

    WEP last 5min and has 90% chance of failure after the 5min is up.


    Proposed system.

    WEP last 5 min, but instead of high chance of failure, it would be much lower and would increase each minute over the limit.

    one minute over: 5% chance of engine failure

    two minutes over: 10% chance of failure

    three minutes over 15% chance of failure

    and so on.


    This would be a much more realistic system as it would allow you to push your engine a bit harder but would still keep the player in check due to the risk of engine failure. 

    It is exactly the same as the system used in-game but the risk of failure is much much lower.


    I mean...we knew this already. What about this is supposed to be a revelation? 

  8. 6 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

    At max throttle, the Yaks aren't boosted, they are in nominal, and that's as far as they go.


    If you want a good way to destroy MP entirely, then give 15 minute, guaranteed no-chance-of-failure, maximum power to every plane in the game! 

    You do realize that nominal or continuous power is just a designation right? Do you think boosted power is some kind of objective quantity sifted from the heavens? Continuous power is whatever the TBO allows for, and the TBO is however long the users say it is. 

    2 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

    That is intrinsically a false assumption. You can simulate reliability the same way that the developers simulate, for instance, the DM. The don´t simulate materials composition, strength or fatigue after being hit in any real fashion way. I am sure hey simulate failures that depend on a given situation (hit to some key component), with some factors included and then they add some randomness to the effect as it is impossible to simulate all the possible variations that can affect the structures of, for example, the wings. Some randomness makes it plausible instead of expecting the same effect all the time.


    The more I read about this topic the more I think that simply lifting all the limits to wep is wrong. I agree with you that a plane won´t lose its engine in one mission for exceeding the wep limit. Even if abusing it badly. But with the current situation of receiving a factory fresh example in every mission, the addition of the "WEP free" approach would result in an unrealistic model.

    The pilot manuals did limit the boost time mainly because of wearing reasons. Fuel wasn´t the main limit. If it was then the P-51 manual would factor the boost limits by range  and not by time (I used Mustang example because it has a huge range). Even a Spitfire that is relatively short ranged wouldn´t have a problem with 10 or 15 min WEP (fuel related).

    If wearing simulation is technically not possible currently (or would take too many time&resources), then another approach needs to be taken. Giving free WEP for everyone is a very wrong option in my opinion. Please note that I am not saying that the current model is better or the way to go. I am all for changing it to something better but don´t think is free WEP.

    Zunzun, there is no way to model this in a non-intrusive way short of a persistent 1000 player server that tracks your planes maintenance records. Thats not going to happen, and even if it was in the distant future, thats not a reason to sit on the current system. 


    We dont fly in this game like the real pilots did. We sit in 1G comfy chairs with operational requirements that are nothing like real life. Our mission objectives are not like real life. 


    Every suggestion that is given, including the current in game "solution," is smuggling an abstraction of some notion of real world logistical problems into the engines AS IF they were mechanical features of the engine. 


    Random engine failures, and ticking time bombs are not discrete elements of the engines in this game. 


    Ultimately the arguments to "do something, do anything" to "model" engine problems are nothing more than taking something the game can actually do (the performance of the functioning engine and its associated affect on plane performance) and sacraficing that to give us a engine with totally fake elements to pay homage to something outside the games scope.




    You can have a model of a high performance engine. 


    You cant have the logistics and full operational model. 


    Trying to cram the operational model into the engine as though it were literal mechanical effect results in you getting NEITHER the engine or the larger picture problem.



    You just end up with a bonkers abstraction that is nonsense all round. 

    • Upvote 1

  9. 1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:


    This really is not that difficult a concept.....  The harder you run the engine, and the longer you do that, the more likely it is to fail.   It's similar to what we have now, but with significantly relaxed failure rates in relation to time.  (Sure, an engine could fail 30 seconds over the book limits just like it does now in some planes, it just would be far less likely).


    I can't tell if you are failing to read what's been written, or if you are intentionally trying to misrepresent it.  If this is "illogical" or you are trying to portray this as just a "random" failure, with no relation to how the pilot treats the engine, then I really am at a loss to explain it further. 

    Your right, its not a hard concept to grasp.


    Yes, if you run anything harder it is more likely to fail. However this hardly justifies applying some roulette wheel to engine mechanics. AGAIN, are you going to apply this to everything else? I mean by this logic everything in the game should just randomly fail. Wing should just plain fall off sometimes. Guns should jam. Brakes fails. Russian planes should have totally unreliable performance due to shoddy factory standards. German planes could have sabotage from slave labor. 


    I mean seriously this is just a totally absurd concept. The bloody computer I am typing this on could randomly fail..... 



    I mean pulling G's puts more strain on a human being than normal. Should there be a chance for a stroke as well? 






    • Like 1

  10. 1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

    You can continue to build your Strawman with heavy use of words like "Random Failure" and "Roll of the Dice" all you want, but the bottom line is that you either get a 1)statistical model of failure, 2)you get a physical model of failure, 3)a combination of the two, or 4)you just ditch the failure model completely and play airquake.  An algorithm that implements a system where the longer you run the engine in overboost, the greater the chance of failure is perfectly logical, and probably the one that has the most chance of getting implemented.  In fact, from all appearances, that's what is already happening in the current simulation, and it's just a matter of lowering the chance of failure significantly. 






    So are wings going to randomly fail? Random gun jamming? Brake failure? Prop failure? Instrument failure?


    Please do tell. 


    You can have failures at continuous power, not just wep or combat. What sort of absurdity is it that the only area anyone wants to put failures on is engines.



    There are a great many of you who do not not understand the difference between "realistic" and average.

    • Like 1

  11. 15 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:


    no it is not, but it is academic since the Devs have already said they will not go that route, so no need to have that argument all over again. Let's just agree to disagree.


    what a brillant idea, it is rare that we agree on something.  😎

    No they did not. They said they were aware changes are desired and aren't not sure how they want to handle it. 

  12. 15 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:


    well I am not sure I understand your point then. I thought the point of increasing the WEP limit on P47s was to make it more competitive against K4s in MP deathmaches on Berloga.


    If balance is not a consideration, then there is no reason for the Devs to detract from their policy of modeling ACs strictly based on the limits set out in the operating manuals.

    Well its because removing the limits is more realistic. 

  13. 25 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:


    The problem with removing timers is that it would give an instant performance boost to 109 F2-G6 and 190 A3-5 against Russian planes, not everyone is going to switch to US/british BOBP planes.


    The simplest solution would be to bump up the P-47/P-51 WEP limit to 10 minutes, as long as there is water, so it is on par with MW50 equipped German planes.


    You could also bump up the 1 minute limit on early 109s/190s to 3 minute since there is some historical basis for it. It would give a bit more usable WEP since with the way timers work, 3 minutes is more like 5-6 minutes and it would not unduly unbalance the relative performance vs Russian planes.

    Especially in the early war setting of most box titles so far, German fighters did have said performance advantage. So it should not be a problem.



  14. On 12/5/2018 at 9:24 AM, 77.CountZero said:

    if i play with gamma at 1 as by default, i would see them only from 6-7km. I run tests in QM when i place enemys 10km from me to face me and can turn on/off icons so when i see them i can pause game and turn on icons to se what is distance. And then i adjust my monitor and gamma to what gives me most posible distance and still is not to dark like gamma at 0.5 for example.


    low range gives advantage to fast airplanes, your victam dosent have time to rect fast enought to run.


    so unlike some people belive that in bobp i me262 players will suffer most from this 9,5km bubble, i think it will worst for players in slowest airplanes like spit9 and they will feel this short bubble most and be at disadvantage. 

    It's the opposite. The short ranges favor slow agile fighters and unrealistically disadvantage fast or climbing fighters. Short and difficult spotting makes realistic SA impossible and shortens the ooda loop of the game considerably. This means fast and high fighters have harder than reasonable time of spotting low contacts or keeping track of threats above them should they choose to attack. Speed is almost useless if you don't know when to run. 


    As a result everyone in the game flies at or below 4000m and tend to choose to turn fight. Turning is ideal if you can't see because you stay closer to your target and are always changing direction even if you don't spot someone jumping you. 


    E fighting requires knowledge of the situation and the ability to not easily lose a target. 

    • Upvote 4

  15. Please read the two P-47 Engine threads before voting on this. 


    IF the exact solution you desire is not on here, vote for the thing most like what you want. 







  16. 19 hours ago, Ehret said:


    Then simplify it: instead of engine seizure we would get decreased power for emergency like 2 or 3 percent less. It'd be marginal and shouldn't change odds much yet a good (psychological at least) incentive to keep your engine fresh as long as possible.

    If the pilot keeps the WEP for longer, still, the plane is scrapped after landing, any streak reset and if there is enemy who had some hits then gets a kill.

    No. Because this would be unrealistic. 


    What is more this makes no sense from a game play perspective. If it so marginal it has no effect, then why would you even waste the coding time doing it? Psychological effect? To who? Someone who doesnt know it makes no difference?


    The most realistic solution that doesn't involve a engine model or hyper-detailed persistent multiplayer campaign with a full logistical model..........is to remove the limits. 

  17. 4 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:


    error that I referred to it as a P51 instead of F51? man, get a life. :biggrin:


    and no you are wrong, there is no error in my analysis of "detonation". Try to read and understand for once.



    no, you are quoting a page out of context to try to argue that engine limits do not matter , when other comments in the same manual such as at p. 67 and 82 make it clear that the manual contains the exact same warnings about exceeding limits. Here I will repat to make it easier for you:


    "If you read deeper in the engine operating procedures, they make it clear (p.67) that carburetor air/ engine coolant temperatures have to be kept below a maximum, otherwise there is a "danger of detonation".


    At p. 82 of the manual dealing specifically with detonation/pre ignition, it is clearly stated that if it occurs, rpm/boost must be immediately reduced, otherwise the engine can be destroyed in seconds."


    now whether you are doing that because you think no one will notice or you genuily do not understand the concept only you know.



     see above


    I have said what I have to say in this thread, so stop quoting me. 


    Well yes, it makes sense to point out you had the wrong plane. Its one of several....shallow readings of documents that have lead to much confusion on your part. 


    I am not quoting a page out of context. I am quoting the only page that was relevant to this thread. The page you quote has literally nothing to do with this thread. Where is your evidence that running full power will induce a temperature problem? You are just presuming this. Where is your evidence that running full power causes detonation? Again same thing. The only thing those other sections show is what the pilot is supposed to do if a problem begins. The reason for the problem could be anything. 


    I am not quoting anything out of context Joch. Rather, you are simply presuming that every section of every manual that lists anything about temperature or detonation is immediately connected to engine failure and WEP in the specific manner in which you are arguing. 


  • Create New...