Jump to content

Lord_Flashheart

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    352
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lord_Flashheart

  1. This doesnt even make sense. 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. http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/pilot/2029/Fumes/?tour=42 http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/en/pilot/2029/Fumes/?tour=41 I mean have a look people. As if this is relevant at all.
  2. What, your losing the argument so you look up my WoL stats? You gotta be kidding me.
  3. They are not my only two options. IF they were, some strange reason, obviously his suggestion is an improvement. But nothing until your recent posts indicated we were playing "would you rather" when we were discussing this option.
  4. 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. 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. 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. I mean...we knew this already. What about this is supposed to be a revelation?
  8. 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. 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. SO IN OTHER WORDS: 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.
  9. Like I said before, this debate has just devolved into one side being unable to accept that there is no way to model engine reliability in a video game, and has resorted to "oh I know! RNG!"
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. No they did not. They said they were aware changes are desired and aren't not sure how they want to handle it.
  13. 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. 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.
  15. This is another example of those inputs I was referring to.
  16. 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. To be clear: THIS POLL REFERS TO THE TIME LIMITS ON ENGINE SETTINGS. IT DOES NOT REFER TO MAX MANIFOLD PRESSURE OR RPM ALLOWED.
  17. Is there any way to set the field of view to a actual number? such as 90, 100 etc? also what are the default max/min and default fovs?
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. u beat me to it Other people already pointed out the errors in this post regard it being a F-51D, and about the details of detonation, so I will only cover two things: 1) The only relevant context is that it is discussing the reason time limits are in place. It does not matter that it is not referring to WEP, or that it was written in 1954. Its the same plane with the same limits and power settings. If anything it is interesting that they went out of their way to spell this out. 2) XachariasX already went into the details, but I am not even sure why you brought up pg67 to be honest. How on earth did you make the jump from from one thing to the other? Who said there was a overheating problem from high powers? Also, I have stated I am for two different changes to the game. My ideal, and the one I think most mechanically realistic, is to remove all limits except when water runs out. But I did say that I also find removing all combat/military limits and giving all planes 15min of WEP (or till water runs dry whichever is first) would also be mostly satisfactory.
  21. http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northamericanaviation/p-51mustang/an-01-60je-1-flight-handbook-f-51d.html Same plane
×
×
  • Create New...