Modeling historical aircraft reliability

[Primus_71]

I think it would be great if BoS incorporated aircraft systems/engine/weapon reliability as a factor in the sim, as in aircraft with a poor historical record of engine/systems/weapon reliability being more susceptible to developing such problems/malfunctions in the sim as well., e.g. engine malfunction, hydraulics failure, weapon jamming, overheating, structural failure etc.

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

 

 

[BlitzPig_EL]

No disrespect sir, but this can of worms gets opened frequently on every forum devoted to WW2 combat flight sims, and all it has ever done is start a dust up.

 

There is simply no way to quantify how often, or, what kind of failure/failures to implement.

 

Usually it ends something like this...

 

 

JG/II Luftflyer:  Early VVS planes had many quality problems and many many failures, these should be modeled accurately for the sake of history.

 

 

 

VVS Alexi:  OK would you then allow for proper modeling of failures due to poor/rushed construction of late war Luftwaffe aircraft, and also allow for smaller numbers of axis aircraft available to historically simulate the fuel shortages late in the war for Germany?

 

 

Thread ends.

 

You see?

 

Developers have pretty much chosen the correct way in modeling new, factory fresh aircraft.  It's the only way to deal with this that works for the betterment of the devs, because they have to sell a product that folks want to use and enjoy, and NO ONE wants to waste their valuable gaming time sitting around with a broken aircraft.   Now I know some will say but for offline this would be a good thing, and I can see the point.  However, this would entail making two separate damage modules in the code.  

 

The system in use since IL2 came along is the best route overall.

Edited December 20, 2012 by ElAurens

[FlatSpinMan]

In addition, I think there is another thread here somewhere (had a look but couldn't find it) that describes some kind of engine problems that can arise in RoF already.  I think there is random minor engine trouble (please correct me if I'm wrong!). You will also find your guns have jammed quite often, hence my habit of cocking them every time I fire them.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

And even reliable engines were sometimes used in harsh desert/tropical/winter climates Where even basic maintence tasks could bring on relyability issues. Where would you stop?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Skoshi Tiger

[AX2]

I am a ace !!!!

 

All time I get the best plane and the best group of mechanics.  

 

Sorry I don't will pay for failures   B)

[Primus_71]

Thank you all for your input.

 

 

I can see why it may be troublesome (not that Red vs. Blue fans ever run out of issues to argue about), but it doesn't change the fact that reliability was a MAJOR part of the real deal. Maybe this could be incorporated at least in career mode (if there will be one), letting multiplayer types  keep their malfunction-free perfect aircraft.

 

Anyhow, IMHO, it'd be closer to the real thing and add to immersion if it was incorporated as a factor to a reasonable degree.

 

@FlatSpinMan

 

I'm actively flying RoF for nearly 2 years, but I have yet to encounter any engine/systems failure (except due to combat damage) save for common machinegun jam. I'm not saying it is not there, but I never experienced it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Primus_71

[No105_Swoose]

Developers have pretty much chosen the correct way in modeling new, factory fresh aircraft.  It's the only way to deal with this that works for the betterment of the devs, because they have to sell a product that folks want to use and enjoy, and NO ONE wants to waste their valuable gaming time sitting around with a broken aircraft.   Now I know some will say but for offline this would be a good thing, and I can see the point.  However, this would entail making two separate damage modules in the code.  

 

The system in use since IL2 came along is the best route overall.

 

Good question and topic Primus_71

 

I agree with ElAurens' comments.

 

Also, I'm concerned new simmers trying BOS for the first time might become very frustrated with random engine/hydraulic/flight controls/weapons malfunctions or failures.  We need new simmers to help make IL-2: BOS a viable proposition and help sustain the flight sim genre.

[Jetlagg]

In addition, I think there is another thread here somewhere (had a look but couldn't find it) that describes some kind of engine problems that can arise in RoF already.  I think there is random minor engine trouble (please correct me if I'm wrong!). You will also find your guns have jammed quite often, hence my habit of cocking them every time I fire them.

 

Almost  true. B)  Rise of Flight models engine variation rather than engine trouble.  So one Gnome 9N may be operating at 160HP an another at 156HP.  This way, neoqb (and subsequently 777) could simulate "new" engines and "older" worn out engines. 

[LukeFF]

You will also find your guns have jammed quite often, hence my habit of cocking them every time I fire them.

 

Well, not quite:  ROF has misfires, not weapon jams. The two malfunctions are not the same thing.

 

And on the subject of mechanical failures: it's a fine option to have, but it would most definitely need to be a difficulty option. Many would like such a feature, but many would also hate it. Kind of like the "bird-strike" difficulty feature in DCS titles.

[theOden]

Good suggestion Primus, as long as it's optional at the mission designer's selection.

[6S.Manu]

Good suggestion Primus, as long as it's optional at the mission designer's selection.

Yep... let the decision to the mission designer.

[II./JG27_Rich]

If anyone here has been around since 2001 and has a good memory you will remember the random poor engines in 2001 IL-2. It may have been realistic but what a pain it was if you were flying in an online war like D.I.D. You couldn't just select another aeroplane. All you could do really was putt around for 30 minutes or so and stay out of the fight.

[Primus_71]

If anyone here has been around since 2001 and has a good memory you will remember the random poor engines in 2001 IL-2. It may have been realistic but what a pain it was if you were flying in an online war like D.I.D. You couldn't just select another aeroplane. All you could do really was putt around for 30 minutes or so and stay out of the fight.

 

I don't remember 'random poor engines' in the original IL2. Are you sure it had that? I'm sure I have the CD laying around somewheres, I may be tempted to install it and find out myself 

 

By the way. I 100% agree that reliability modeling should be optional so everybody wins.

[BlitzPig_EL]

It mostly occured on Bf 109s on winter maps, and usually at start up.

 

You could easily foul spark plugs if you advanced the throttle without some warm up time.

 

I remember it well.

 

Most folks just hit "refly" so it was gone in one of the early patches.

[ShamrockOneFive]

+1 ElAurens, this issue has definitely been discussed to death before with the same outcome each time. Some random variability would be good as an option but go too deep on this and it gets into a kind of nightmare scenario for the developers.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

What do you guys think?

IMHO.. Just not enough real world data to do it correctly

[migmadmarine]

Regarding the reference to ROF's feature, there is no random failures, but each time an aircraft is spawned, there is some randomization to the engine performance, so you can end up with one that is a little bit of a lemon, or preforming better than average. It's not terribly pronounced, but there are times where I've found the engine needs a bit of prodding to get started. 

[wiseblood]

I wouldn't mind it if it could be linked to some in-game circumstance (you succeeded/failed to escort the last supply drop, your ground crew built experience over time, the amount of damage on aircraft in your flight gives less/more time for routine maintenance, etc) but twatting you for something you can't control, for "history" - when you are kind of writing it as you play - seems a bit harsh.  There is actually a quite nice squad management mechanic in the existing ROF beta career where individual pilots are named gain promotions and medals, appear on an aces board, your number of writeoffs/repairable aicraft impacts how many you have next flight, etc.  That stuff I like.

Edited December 22, 2012 by wiseblood

[Duckman]

I think it should be included as an optional setting. The game already has to have damage modelling, so presumably random failures and degraded performance won't be that difficult. They would also be appropriate for the early war VVS and late war Luftwaffe, as already mentioned. 

 

The biggest difficulty is probably explaining it to the players so they don't go "wtf my lagg just stopped flying, stupid loser game!!!". However by making it optional and not the default setting I think you could avoid that.

 

One cool effect is that it would penalize new and "????ber" aircraft types. Maybe that trusty ole I-16 or Bf 109 doesn't look so bad if the new wonder weapon is having teething troubles? Could be a good equalizer for online games as well. :-)

[JG4Helofly]

I don't think that such a feature should be implemented. It would only bring frustration for nothing.

Online, people want a fair competition. So, no place for random breakdown. For offliners, it could be an addition to realisme, but who would really want to fly with poor and unreliable airplanes all the time (exemple: early russian planes or late german planes)? Not worth the trouble and the developpement time IMO.

But the already mentionned performance difference of a few percent could be realistc and interesting. I would support that, but for online competition it would be a problem as mentionned above.

[Duckman]

While it may not be the most necessary feature I do think there is a strong case for it from a realism standpoint.

 

It's kind of funny when people argue that a game "must" have magnetos and the like to be realistic or that aircraft so-and-so's top speed is off by 2%, but are willing to overlook factors that matter much more like performance issues from poor maintenance or production.

 

(In the same vein I think formation tactics and AI is another issue that warrants a lot more discussion, but that's another topic.)

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I think how RoF does it could be the thing, miniscule variation in engines for example but not going too deep into the swamp of technicality. Sure there were differences in planes, but as AoA said, not enough reliable data for modelling this. So best option would probably be to give a slight variation.

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

Never ever for online, offline option...sure, why not.

[FlatSpinMan]

Earlier someone posted about being an ace and having the best crew and machines. I agree with that attitude. When we fly we don't do hundreds of hours of routine patrols, instead we do a kind of highlights version. I doubt even the most rivet counting of online bombing squads would fly anything like that. I see this similarly. Just assume we engine problems and did endless no-contact patrols in between the fun missions we actually fly. As option I guess it'd be okay, but it'd be way down my list of priorities.

[Heywooood]

man - remember the fuss in iL2 over engine cutout in the non fuel injected engined aircraft like the I-16 and the Hurricane?

 

that was a well modeled feature that, when inverted, that type of engine SHOULD cut out.... and people hated it - or simply would not fly those types.

 

random engine / airframe failures would nuke the forums to the stone ages

 

Im all for engine miss-management or airframe oversrtess leadting to failure if one selected it for 'realism' - thats a different thing and I think acceptable to most simmers

but random / unforced failures - NO

[II./JG27_Rich]

It mostly occured on Bf 109s on winter maps, and usually at start up.

 

You could easily foul spark plugs if you advanced the throttle without some warm up time.

 

I remember it well.

 

Most folks just hit "refly" so it was gone in one of the early patches.

That's right. I'm glad someone else remembers this 

[II./JG27_Rich]

Also reading Helmut Lipfert's War Diary I couldn't believe how many times his guns would jam. Being in the freezing cold winter some times may have had something to do with this. I remember once he was able to get them unjamed by rolling the 109 vigorously. Then being able to restart his 109 again and again by the wind over his prop while gliding home. It was smoking and over heating so he would start it then shut it of ..start it shut it off.

[addman]

There's no need for reliability modelling IMO. Decent modeled CEM will make a lot of people brake their planes all by themselves. The CloD Blenheim is a perfect example of why decent CEM is all that is needed, I bet that plane has broken many a keyboards and joysticks. I love it for the challenge.

[Crump]

Im all for engine miss-management or airframe oversrtess leadting to failure if one selected it for 'realism' - thats a different thing and I think acceptable to most simmers

but random / unforced failures - NO

 

Agreed, what is the point of random failures in a game?  It is just a reason to hit the restart button.

.

 

Decent modeled CEM will make a lot of people brake their planes all by themselves

 

Exactly.  They need to model CEM as realistically as possible on a home computer and communicate what the correct engine management techniques the game expects.  That will reduce the frustration level of those trying out CEM for the first time.

[BlitzPig_EL]

One of the big problems for CEM is that there are typically no pilot's notes on proper operation in the sim.  Often using the real pilots notes leads to blown up/seized engines owing to modeling issues or the inability of the game engine to properly model the real engine, or airflow through radiators, etc.

Edited December 29, 2012 by ElAurens

[=BKHZ=Furbs]

As ive said, offline as a option...ok, Online....never.

[FlatSpinMan]

...and communicate what the correct engine management techniques the game expects.

This part is really important. Tutorial missions on this kind of thing would be great.

[NZTyphoon]

IMHO.. Just not enough real world data to do it correctly

For example, how would one model the response of the Merlin XX, used in the Hurricane II, to the low quality, low octane fuels used by the Russians cf the usual high quality 100 octane fuel normally used?

Not only that, even if there were enough real world data to model every hiccup and quirk of each engine type, the amount of development time and the resources needed to do so even reasonably accurately is formidable.

[LukeFF]

I like the way Battlefront has modeled vehicles and their philosophy on engine reliability in their Combat Mission games: if a vehicle is on the map, then it's in mechanically-reliable shape. Yes, in a perfect world having engine breakdowns and failures would be great, but I just don't ever see it being a popular feature, especially with the multiplayer crowd.