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

-snip-

 

I can assure you that when a lead dev tells you it'll be fine you just don't believe them

 

-snip-

 

Genuine question because I'm curious: Why are you so pressed on an approximate delivery date anyway? If you're a project manager for a software development firm you should know better than expecting a hard-set delivery date... Especially for an entertainment software product.

 

TFS' cautious approach of "It'll get here when it gets here." is a lot more user friendly than "Promise. Delay. Promise. Delay. Promise. Delay."

Edited by Space_Ghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably because this has all been promised since 2015...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has never been expected a delivery date since 2015, because there has never been any promises. These people got a day job and their work has been for free. 4,5 will be the last free update. 

Your claim of being promised will not be valid before you actually buy something, so buy 5,0 update and feel free to be able to claim and getting frustrated

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has never been expected a delivery date since 2015, because there has never been any promises. These people got a day job and their work has been for free. 4,5 will be the last free update.

Your claim of being promised will not be valid before you actually buy something, so buy 5,0 update and feel free to be able to claim and getting frustrated

This ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has never been expected a delivery date since 2015, because there has never been any promises. These people got a day job and their work has been for free. 4,5 will be the last free update. 

Your claim of being promised will not be valid before you actually buy something, so buy 5,0 update and feel free to be able to claim and getting frustrated

 

Maybe 2015 was a piece of hyperbole on my part but 2016 was strongly suggested as being the window for release. We're now erring towards the tail-end of 2017. It was also suggested here by MysticPuma, at the beginning of 2016, that we would see the release of TF5. You must forgive some folk for being short on belief that we'll see anything this side of 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that unexpected access to Source Code this year allow then polish more the patches before release, so await end of 2017 for 4.5, middle/later 2018 for 5.0 may became rewarding.

 

Without fix CloD main flaws, like ground handling, AI behavior, etc. not matter how many new variations of Bf 109 or Spit, or Fw 190, P-51... maps or pyrotechnic effects... they add to the game, will mask that "taste of half cooked thing" always present. Old/new players will test new patches and point the same old defects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how I think this feature should be added if it's to be a useful addition to the game:

 

Random failures option should be a realism option you can turn on or off in single player OR multiplayer.

If it's multiplayer, it should be a server side option. On for everyone or off for everyone.

Its 'randomness' should be script-able by the mission makers. If the mission designer decides that 0.0001 percent chance is too low and wants to make it 0.005, then they should be able to set it. If a mission maker wants to tell you that the erks at Hawkinge are terrible and the ones at Middle Wallop are great (P.S.: Add Middle Wallop and Deitling to the map?) then such a function allows them to determine failure rate upon repair based on location.

Any 'hours' or 'stress' values assigned to aircraft engines or air frames should be values that the mission script maker can pass to a database or other function within the script to be able to record those values and use them for other functions (persistent aircraft across server resets, persistent aircraft for specific pilots).

The 'hours' and 'stress' values need to be adjustable with script functions such that a mission designer could create a 'refurbish/maintenance' option for pilots to use and therefore do proper maintenance on their aircraft.

Stress application values due to certain actions by the pilot should be made such that a mission script maker can adjust the values. Mission builder A feels that running a Spitfire at full 9lbs / 12lbs boost for over five minutes means a large increase of failure possibility and can set it as such WHEREAS Mission builder B feels that doing the same thing only marginally increases the failure rate and proper maintenance of the engine due to known maintenance schedules IRL (10 hours, 20 hours etc) should contain any major increases in failure beyond 'acts of god and bad metal' etc.

 

And these get/set script commands should operate in real time so that the mission builder can adjust the failure / wear and tear rates mid-mission in response to changing mission conditions (sand storm perhaps? or hot day changing to cool night?)

CloD's biggest selling point is that mission script makers can do so much with it. Features like random failures should be added with that in mind and also include the tools needed for mission script makers to really dig in. So basically, any randomness feature needs to not only be a switch in realism settings, but also a full suite of script functions to go along with it that is documented and available to mission builders.

Edited by No.401_Wolverine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how I think this feature should be added if it's to be a useful addition to the game:

 

Random failures option should be a realism option you can turn on or off in single player OR multiplayer.

 

If it's multiplayer, it should be a server side option. On for everyone or off for everyone.

 

Its 'randomness' should be script-able by the mission makers. If the mission designer decides that 0.0001 percent chance is too low and wants to make it 0.005, then they should be able to set it. If a mission maker wants to tell you that the erks at Hawkinge are terrible and the ones at Middle Wallop are great (P.S.: Add Middle Wallop and Deitling to the map?) then such a function allows them to determine failure rate upon repair based on location.

 

Any 'hours' or 'stress' values assigned to aircraft engines or air frames should be values that the mission script maker can pass to a database or other function within the script to be able to record those values and use them for other functions (persistent aircraft across server resets, persistent aircraft for specific pilots).

 

The 'hours' and 'stress' values need to be adjustable with script functions such that a mission designer could create a 'refurbish/maintenance' option for pilots to use and therefore do proper maintenance on their aircraft.

 

Stress application values due to certain actions by the pilot should be made such that a mission script maker can adjust the values. Mission builder A feels that running a Spitfire at full 9lbs / 12lbs boost for over five minutes means a large increase of failure possibility and can set it as such WHEREAS Mission builder B feels that doing the same thing only marginally increases the failure rate and proper maintenance of the engine due to known maintenance schedules IRL (10 hours, 20 hours etc) should contain any major increases in failure beyond 'acts of god and bad metal' etc.

 

And these get/set script commands should operate in real time so that the mission builder can adjust the failure / wear and tear rates mid-mission in response to changing mission conditions (sand storm perhaps? or hot day changing to cool night?)

 

CloD's biggest selling point is that mission script makers can do so much with it. Features like random failures should be added with that in mind and also include the tools needed for mission script makers to really dig in. So basically, any randomness feature needs to not only be a switch in realism settings, but also a full suite of script functions to go along with it that is documented and available to mission builders.

Exactly. This guy gets it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm i am not sure if i get it right, is it like random factor for every mission or it's going to change if you will fly many missions. It would be nice for carrier mode where you keep 1 plane and if you use engine a lot then % will rise, could also be fixed by mechanic if there is break from flying like 3 days to lower %.

 

Otherwise I guess something like 1% or less would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is an option for online mission designers to adjust the chance of failure based on records being kept from mission to mission to see how long an engine has been flying & how well it is treated then I hope that same mission designer puts some sort of penalty in place for pilots who die or crash a lot. Without a strong penalty, people will just make sure they destroy their plane at the end of each mission so they can have a new one for the next mission.   Even with the penalty that Storm Of War used to use where losing an aircraft meant your own squadron being short of aircraft to fly,  a pilot who has lasted several sorties because he is just a good pilot might begin to worry that his success will come back to bite him in the bum at an inconvenient point in a future sortie. He might then decide that having just flown a sortie with no kills to return then he will just bail out over the field and get a fresh aircraft even if it loses his squadron an aircraft. He might justifiably think he deserves that fresh aircraft seeing as other less skilled pilots have cost the squadron many more airframes.

 

A *lot* of thought will have to go into any attempt at recreating wear and tear over several sorties. Maintainance needs to be factored in and just because one pilot is not as gentle with his engine as his fellow squadron members, who is to say that his skilled ground crew are not capable of working through the night to ensure his engine is just as good as everyone elses next morning?   I would suggest that at the very least engines get set back to perfect condition after X hours of flight time as if they have had a scheduled rebuild.  That way the gentle pilots aircraft will always be in 'Perfect to Good' condition while the rough pilots aircraft will go from 'Perfect to Iffy' during each maintenance period, assuming they last that long.    Personally, I think it is better just to let every sortie begin with a perfect aircraft and have its performance and chance of catastrophic failure deteriorate over the course of the sortie at a rate relative to its treatment.   Even a good pilot who is normally careful with his engine might need to deliberately push it further during a difficult dogfight knowing he is damaging it and might pay the price before he gets home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the first system seems perfect. The same apparatus in a competition will have the wear corresponding to its landings and its efforts both structural and motor

What about random failures I do not like.

As a comrade has said nobody wants to go out with a plane that is like the lottery

I greet you

Edited by E69_pienoir

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...