Jump to content
69thSpiritus_Mortem

Would you like to see advanced Engine Reliability in TF 5.0?

Would you like Engine Reliability in TF 5.0?  

142 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like Engine Reliability in TF 5.0?

    • Yes
      73
    • No
      36
    • Yes, but only in single player
      3
    • Yes, but with the option for Multiplayer servers to opt out
      30


Recommended Posts

Salute All

As we have mentioned, in the TF 4.5 release TF will be changing the way the aircraft engines react when they are subject to overheat... providing a less predictable damage result and a variable number of damage results.

This will be continued in TF 5.0... but we are also thinking of introducing a new variable... engine reliability.

To explain: 

Oleg built two systems into the game... 

- One, a system whereby the engine/airframe elements react to abuse... ie. failure will occur when the player over-steps the limits for the usage of that particular component.

- Two, a randomizer system, whereby the engine can actually fail... without the player actually exceeding the recommended limits... i.e. a 'reliability' factor. This is based on several factors... number of hours the engine has on it... hours recommended for the engine between major overhauls... and a random factor.

The second system is not distinct from the first... a players chance of his engine randomly failing is directly tied to how carefully he manages it. I.e. if he flys the engine exactly within the 
'normal' boost/rpm levels, he is less likely to see a failure than if he uses maximum boost/rpms... or exceeds the maximums.

Where TF would set the random factor is a sliding scale... we could set it to 100%, which means the engine fails shortly after being started... or to 0.001 percentage, which means the failure is very much less likely.

Basically this models the "Murphy's Law" theory of mechanical systems... or "Shyte Happens".

So to get to the point, please reply with your preferences as to whether such a system should be implemented in TF 5.0.

Thanks th_salute.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been waiting for something like this for 20+ years of simming!

Yes please! It'll make things a lot more realistic and force people to worry about their engines rather than sticking it at max safe RPM and leaving it.

Edited by 1./JG54_Uwe
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Thank you. We all have to live with Murphy's Law at work and when driving to work. Flying Sims is like a third job to some of us. So yes, I would enjoy seeing the occasional,"...Crap what da!?" And then trying to figure out how to tell my co-pilot the engine number 1 propeller fell off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I run a commercial fishing boat in real life... the engine comes to feel like a living breathing organism that requires attention, care, etc just like any living body.

 

One of the most engaging aspects of engines is their management, ESPECIALLY over time. In previous flight sims, you run your engine to its maximum capability at all times, just under the threshold of immediate damage incurring. In reality though, pilots are cautious when pushing their engines, because there are so many things that could go wrong... either right then and there, or down the road upon repeated abuse. Neat little management techniques, individual engine quirks, and conditional effects of persistent use are all interesting factors involved in running an engine day-to-day, and would all give depth and substance to this sim... It causes players to think, to care, to manage, to make decisions, and it will really make the player feel connected with his aircraft and an active part of it's operations. 100 % all for it

Edited by VtViper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, please.

 

Enable that "Physical damage" slider, at least in Single Player.

Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on!  All these people saying it is a great idea seem a bit confused.   We are not talking about a pilot stressing his engine over several weeks and paying the price one day. Your aircraft starts with a new engine on every spawn.  

 

The question being asked is 'Do you want your perfect factory fresh engine that you have just started (using non-stressful methods) to randomly fail on take-off or 10 minutes into your sortie?   Would you really be happy if you have been planning all week to take part in a major organised event and just as you get in sight of the enemy, having flown all the way treating the engine like a baby, a random number generator decides to turn off your engine?

 

I do not want random failures and I do not want 'Temp X exceeded = Engine stops'.  I want  'Engine is damaged (by stress or enemy action) so will work less effectively and, depending on the problem,  may degenerate and eventually fail but with careful management may allow you to get home OK'.    Many previous flight sims worked that way. A damaged engine would make a lot of noise and have reduced power but on low revs may survive long enough to get you home.  An engine fire on a bomber may go out leaving a  dead engine but not destruction of the aircraft. I can remember (in Aces High or Warbirds?) accidentally touching someone tail with my prop and limping home at low revs with the engine shaking and threatening to fail if I pushed it too hard.   It is odd that modern flight sims, not just the IL2 series,  seem to have gone backwards in the damage modelling.  I can remember landing heavily in Fighter Squadron and losing the wheel then watching as that lost wheel rolled in ever decreasing circles on the runway until it fell over.  That was decades ago!  

I remember how in Pacific Air War :1942  when a wing came off it would not just plummet to the ground like an un-aerodynamic piece of metal, it would tumble & spin down like a sycamore seed :-)

Edited by 56RAF_Roblex
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The question being asked is 'Do you want your perfect factory fresh engine that you have just started using perfect non-stressful methods to randomly fail on take-off or 10 minutes into your sortie?   Would you really be happy if you have been planning all week to take part in a major organised event and just as you get in sight of the enemy, having flown all the way treating the engine like a baby, a random number generator decides to turn off your engine?

 

I understood the question differently. There would be a slider to define the engine's general condition. A "factory fresh" engine would have 0.001% probability of being damaged and an "older engine" could have a higher probability all the way up to 100% where you would be sure to have an engine damage, even if you were not exceeding any specified limits.

 

 

 

I want  'Engine is damaged (by stress or enemy action) so will work less effectively and, depending on the problem,  may degenerate and eventually fail but with careful management may allow you to get home OK'.

 

I think this has been part of the sim from day 1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted Yes but with the option for multiplayer to opt out.  It's an interesting idea and I appreciate being asked my opinion too :salute: .   I think - if implemented - it should be an option across the board for both single and multiplayer.

 

I do rather agree with this;

 

Hold on!  All these people saying it is a great idea seem a bit confused.   We are not talking about a pilot stressing his engine over several weeks and paying the price one day. Your aircraft starts with a new engine on every spawn.  

 

The question being asked is 'Do you want your perfect factory fresh engine that you have just started using perfect non-stressful methods to randomly fail on take-off or 10 minutes into your sortie?   Would you really be happy if you have been planning all week to take part in a major organised event and just as you get in sight of the enemy, having flown all the way treating the engine like a baby, a random number generator decides to turn off your engine?

 

At the moment I have very limited time available for any organized events and the thought of being put out of action by the random number generator I find a bit lip-curling.  We've already got to cope with other random failures in terms of the game crashing, the server crashing, the connection crashing, Steam crashing, etc.

 

Once again, an interesting idea and very good to have more choices - as long as it is the users choice.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Factory fresh engines do fail from time to time.

Shit happens!

I would like to see this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in for it!

 

Also could add much depth to online campaigns if it could be possible to implement aircraft maintenance...

Was a side better equipped/ had more reliable planes during a timeframe of the war? This should be reflected...

Your side gets low on airplane numbers? Same planes are flew over and over without rest and repair time? Random failures will start to appear more often...

I would prefer minor fails over total fails, and balancing this effect is critical, but yes i would definitely see it!

Especially in TF5.0! 

I expect more fails in the desert than in French/Britain!

 

An engine problem can ruin your best sortie in a campaign, but could make fun getting home from an uneventful patrol aswell!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that "inspired" original CloD manual:

 

 


Physical Weathering. The flip side of the visual weathering setting, this slider allows you to set how well the aircraft’s systems operate.
 
0% means the  plane is in perfect working order, and 100% means it’s an accident waiting to happen.
 
The actual details of a higher Physical Weathering setting are determined randomly, including which systems are affected, how broken they  are, and at what times they may completely break down.
 
While 100% physical weathering means  on average a much  higher chance of  more things going wrong, the random nature of the failure model can mean that you’ll fly an uneventful mission in a 100%.plane, and have a wing fall off on start-up in a 1%.plane. 
 
NOTE: This setting is not for the faint of heart. Even the more hardcore players often find it infuriating, reset it to 0 and never touch it again.
You can only take so many missions in which your engine seizes in the middle of a heated dogfight and you float down helplessly waiting to get shot out of the sky.
 
For what I remember that "Physical Weathering" slider adjust - like several other things in CloD - never work, and "vanished" in some patch.
 
CLo_D_PW.jpg
Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something tells me that if implemented, this will not be the Nirvana some think it will be.

Also, there is so much else that the sim still needs to make it truly world-class, and it DOES have that potential.

Like a believable, aggressive AI (tops my list, at least) among other things.

TF has performed miracles with COD. I feel this engine reliability thing is an adventure that will take much needed resources of time and energy with very little added value to show for it.

Not all of Oleg's ideas were absolute gems. Fw-190 "bar", .50 caliber dispersion factor, laser AI gunners, untouchable spiral-climbing AI, to name a few.

"Engine reliability"? Why?

I voted No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

TF has performed miracles with COD. I feel this engine reliability thing is an adventure that will take much needed resources of time and energy with very little added value to show for it.

 

-snip-

 

"Engine reliability"? Why?

 

-snip-

 

These provisions have always existed in the code. TF is proposing tweaks to what Oleg and Friends had already written.

 

Four words: Engine simulation, flight simulation.

 

100% for it and would love to see random system failures.

Edited by Space_Ghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiritus_Mortem,

Engine reliability is an outstanding opportunity, but can I ask if such features as hosting server software that uses multiple cores is something that also interests the development group also? Or is that a bigger ticket item that would take significantly more resources?

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiritus_Mortem,

Engine reliability is an outstanding opportunity, but can I ask if such features as hosting server software that uses multiple cores is something that also interests the development group also? Or is that a bigger ticket item that would take significantly more resources?

 

Thank you.

 

I'll ask and either post back or have someone else who is more knowledgeable about that reply here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Am Offliner, 

 

 

If this was re-implement like initially planed, see the slider in this options picture:

 

https://s27.postimg.org/3soh2mzvn/CLo_D_PW.jpg

 

This should not cause problems for your gameplay preference, because is a optional feature, just set the slider in 0 - then you have a "bullet proof" engine. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TunaEatsLion: We are working on improving many different areas in the sim... our work on features like engine reliability does not hinder our work on aspects like improving server performance. TF is many different people doing many different things. The future looks good for Cliffs. 

 

@Guenter, we hope you check Cliffs out, it is worth it. The poll about this question is to judge the communities interest and get their thoughts so thank you for taking the time. Chances would be something like this would be optional anyways, so you shouldn't pass on Cliffs or any game you have interest in if it has more options. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People. PLEASE READ THE QUESTION.

 

Do you want this for TF5?

 

Do you want yet more scope creep on this already massively late update? If you ask for this TFS will put the release off even further. Sure I want bells and whistles, I wrote a long post on the ACG thread for this topic and it would in particular benefit ACG greatly,,,,,,BUT,,,,,,right now I don't have anything.

 

PLEASE JUST DELIVER SOMETHING FIRST.

These provisions have always existed in the code. TF is proposing tweaks to what Oleg and Friends had already written.

 

Four words: Engine simulation, flight simulation.

 

100% for it and would love to see random system failures.

 

I'd love to see pilot failures before that. Would have a far greater and more realistic impact on air combat.

 

https://tfbt.nuvturais.de/issues/879

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love that. But not in TF5. There is so much in this update already. Let us first have that, and then include extensions of systems modelling. It will be a challenge just to get used to all aircraft even when they are working perfectly. The time we take for that could be the time the devs invest in putting more to systems modelling.

 

Personally speaking, I would very much like this feature, and I would also keep it turned on. But if we have this feature, there should be a setting like in FSX where you can set likelyhoods for failure on each component. It would certainly would add a lot to the sim.

 

There could also be a global "reliability slider", reflecting worn out aircraft, setting failure likelyhoods across the systems randomly, but their magnitude according to the slider. It would be a nice feature in campaign mode. It would change the way people would fly their mission, getting more risk averse knowing your aircraft may fail. As you do have a ground crew, you should get some info in mission briefing about ehat ground crew thinks of your aircraft.

 

It will be a great feature if persisent damage was included for campaign mode. For all those racing always at full power, you'd wear out your aircraft faster. Depending on your expected resupply, you could tax your aircraft more. Or less.

 

There is a lot to systems modelling. Too much to further add it. It should even be enough for a dedicated update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There could also be a global "reliability slider", reflecting worn out aircraft, setting failure likelyhoods across the systems randomly, but their magnitude according to the slider. 

 

That's the original OM plan, the "physical weathering" slider present in CloD on release - but like the Radio Commands, this do... "nothing", was locked in 0 (disabled) and latter removed from GUI.

 

No player know how this "Physical Weathering" really work in practice (is similar to DCSW random failures? Is random like in 1946?) because that slider never work.

 

Actually random failures can be forced in Single Mission through scripts.

 

69thSpiritus_Mortem

 

The main question is:If TF decide add this feature, will be a fixed/enforced or optional/adjustable like planed in original CloD release?

Edited by Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Failures shouldn't be just random. Of course you can implement random factor for every individual component to fail, that shoudn't be that hard.You can link that to a slider that lets you choose between 100% reliable and "not so reliable". How high the lowest setting would be, one had to try out. At least it should let you fly for some time and not just blow up on the runway.

 

As said, there were ground crews and they only gave you aircraft that they knew were flying at least somewhat. If something was known to be broken, they'd told you. So in a campaign mode, you could select between aircraft of different "health" (or just be handed, in case you rank low). So that would be a cool add to a campaign I think.

 

Implementing failures would mean more than just making one thing not working and then flying like that. It would mean that the entire chain of events, e.g. your head gasket is leaking to power loss to increased oil consumption etc. should be modeled. To really make sense, one had to add systems modelling in much more depht.

 

Doing that right for all aircraft I'd think would be really a can of worms. It would be a *very, very big* update.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don t like anything with the word random in simulations. If I am flying with my squadron and somebody got an engine failure because of bad luck then the sortie was wasted time for our whole squadron. If it is a pilots fault then there is a way to improve but not if it is random.

I have to say we like to fly on campaigns and coop missions. If you are loosing a plane because of a bad dice roll on a 1-2 h mission then it is for me a game breaker.

But I am also not happy with the behavior on the ground on older TF patches. Did not try the newest so I don t know if it is still a thing. I asked real life pilots on book signing if it was so difficult to control the planes at the taxi or runway but they denied it. It was ~2-3 years ago so I cant compare to the latest version.

Edited by 7./Sch.G.2_BuRNeR
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CloD ground handling has not changed since release - is like if planes has no weight. TF introduced wheel chock's that help in startup, avoiding that 3 ms wind turn the planes on runway...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<I was born yesterday, TF5 is just around the corner, definitely>

 

 

I'm a project manager for software products, and I can assure you that when a lead dev tells you it'll be fine you just don't believe them if you don't want a rollocking from the boss.  TFS won't even give us a release date for 4.5, so they don't know when TF5 will come let alone if this has impact on delivery (which it will)

Edited by Osprey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think either that random failures have much place in online play, especially online coop. Even if it was to reflect real events. It was not uncommon for planes having to turn back from missions and leave their flight due to engine problems.

 

As this is a game and made to provide fun to all players, such an event would hardly be accepted by players. Offline campaign might be different and one could give the player the choice to have the feature or not.

 

Let's give the devs a break and let them tackle each feature after the other. Like this, Space_Ghost may live to see the progress in the sim. ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a project manager for software products, and I can assure you that when a lead dev tells you it'll be fine you just don't believe them if you don't want a rollocking from the boss. TFS won't even give us a release date for 4.5, so they don't know when TF5 will come let alone if this has impact on delivery (which it will)

Basically it means that you have an opinion based on your experiences in another company, but not on the facts of this current situation. Let's imagine that they have a guy working on something major that takes 2-3 months (they don't know exactly) and another guy idle, who is not able to help in that major area. But there are some other things that this idle guy could do. Things that take 1-2 weeks and require no input from the guy with the big task. Would that delay the final product?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grudges from the past lies just beneath a thin thin layer of ice, a feather can crack it open.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TunaEatsLion: We are working on improving many different areas in the sim... our work on features like engine reliability does not hinder our work on aspects like improving server performance. TF is many different people doing many different things. The future looks good for Cliffs.

 

@Guenter, we hope you check Cliffs out, it is worth it. The poll about this question is to judge the communities interest and get their thoughts so thank you for taking the time. Chances would be something like this would be optional anyways, so you shouldn't pass on Cliffs or any game you have interest in if it has more options.

Thanks, sorry for the off-topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback ladies and gents, lets keep it civil please, we are reading everyone's thoughts and comments about the issue and listening. Don't worry, we wouldn't delay 5.0 for this, we want 4.5 and 5.0 finished as soon as possible just like you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sim or a game in general should be clean in that regards. I would directly uninstall, if I want to fly missions with friends and suddenly have a random failure. I mean, for that I wouldnt have turned on my PC to play. I would do it twice and the uninstall is 100% certain. 

 

Those ground effects in my rare experience with TF patches is also a very negative one with those weird starts and having no weight. Since that got implemented, I must say, that I just came back occasionally to try out stuff. And even that is a long time ago.

 

I see TF more in getting content in and making full use of the engines hidden teasures, that Oleg perhaps has left behind.

Some "sims" of modern times hilariously failed with the same thought of adding randomness as "realism". After all, besides the offline flyers perhaps, a squadron usually has the goal to become competitive and play it with some seriousness. Adding random crap into it would ultimately ruin the possibility of the game to be a competitive one.

I expect some immersion, I want a dense atmosphere at least on the runways, I need moving dogfights with possibilities to make use of CloD engine stuff, like moving ground assets. 

The ultimate dream is a fully implemented functionality like SEOW (+moving dogfights, if tasking missions could be done by an AI as an option). I want good, atmospheric rearm, repair, refuel and battlefields beneath me. Perhaps even with a functionality, that a commander can assign you to missions and you can pick them up for your next flight. Something in that direction.

 

I dont know: I am now belonging to the rusty guys. From my experiences in other "sim games", I must finally say, that "realism" in todays games doesnt equal fun anymore. I found my personal limit of "sim" in some games, where I cannot continue having fun. CloD was potentially the last of this series, that could have been fun. Sadly, the legend himself left and left a game behind, where even his colleagues havent had a clue, why he is setting up the engine how he did. He had something bigger in mind....something fun and immersive. That is lost forever.

 

I am all for adding stuff to enhance gameplay, other than trying to get the simulation correct. We can argue forever about flightmodels, etc....but ultimately it needs to be fun, it needs to have a high skill involvement / skill ceiling (which flight sims usually have by nature) to be a longterm success. What is now missing for me (more than anything else), is the involvement to the battlefield/scenario/missions and a game, that is setting new standards in that regards. For me, that is the only way for flightsims to get at least a little bit out of their niche.

 

As long as there is at least some sort of balancing, so that scenarios make sense or make for good fights on both sides, I dont care about 20kph +/- true airspeed below 500meters in level flight. I care about the experience and not talking about such crap.

 

For me, il2 1946 is still the essence of competitive flying in scenarios, that no other game can offer to date (SEOW evenings, moving dogfights). It was fun, it fired up your imagination, etc. We are not getting near this on the current servers + netcode. You cannot play the new games with such high amounts of people.

 

My advice to TF: Perhaps put in vanilla starts and work on implementing the stuff, that enable proper SEOW or moving dogfights in CloD natively. Additionally continue adding planes and content and dont bother about such dumb ideas like random engine failures. You dont get the people back into the game, when it isnt fun. I for myself wont ever start a plane in CloD ever again, if that icey runway/start doesnt get deleted. 

Same as I dont fire up IL2 BOS anymore with those weird cockpit movement, the shake and snapping wings + tail heavy planes and fast TTKs.

 

Dont getting me wrong and let me get this clear after that post: It is impressive,what TF did besides of those 1 major annoying thing (start/weightless ground behaviour). It is absolutely astonishing (once again in that community), that such a thing happened. You have the same spirit and see a lot of value in CloD. I am all for making that game great again, as no other IL2 has more potential than this one :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CLOD should punish you if your throttle is at max and RPM's are running too high. I want that. I do not want to do everything right only to have to restart a mission because I drowned when I figured out I had a lemon 30 minutes from land. Nobody has that kind of time. I guarantee anyone that even thinks they want this feature will eventually turn it off when they get aggravated one too many times at the wrong moment. We burn enough engines on our own without the random chance of failure. If you want to experience random engine failure build a SP mission around it....maybe the follow up mission could be in an enemy plane while you try to dodge friendlies on the way back to friendly territory. But for the love of God do not waste time on this feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback ladies and gents, lets keep it civil please, we are reading everyone's thoughts and comments about the issue and listening. Don't worry, we wouldn't delay 5.0 for this, we want 4.5 and 5.0 finished as soon as possible just like you.

Sure but we don't know that because no schedule or target date has been published. I've seen Buzzsaw's reply to Wolverine on the ATAG thread about the scope of it and it appears that we are talking about a fairly feature basic and 'hardcoded' system which isn't configurable via scripting. So it probably won't be particularly useful for our needs since we would need to track individual machines over a long campaign fought in different sessions, and without gets and sets it is unlikely to work in the way we need. But we don't know because that detail hasn't been provided.My guess is it's another thing in the source which has been discovered and commented out which could be uncommented, polished and debugged though, hence the claim for no impact on delivery.

 

When is delivery scheduled for please?

Edited by Osprey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...