7 1/2 Hour War Emergency Test of Pratt&Whitney R-2800 26 April 1944

[Rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

At the risk of being Captain Obvious, I think the "problem" would be easily solved simply by reducing the chance of failure...if you run a minute over the timer and the percentage chance that the engine will blow is 50%, reduce it to something lowish like 5% or lower...and then increase that percentage chance of failure for each additional minute from there as appropriate.  I'm guessing that they are probably doing something close to that already, it's just that the percentages for exceeding the time limit start out way too high, so you're likely to blow the engine with even a little exceedance over the book values.  And what's more, is that maybe a damaged engine can have a little more nuance...maybe in some cases, if you haven't pushed it too hard for too long, it will be just start to run a little rough, a cause for concern, but not necessarily an immediate RTB moment.  Right now, when you exceed the time limit, the engine goes from healthy to either dead or very close to death at once.

This is arguably worse than the current system.

Fights can and will be decided by RNG on a regular basis. 

There are perfectly good casinos and DnD groups near my home if I wanted to play dice games.

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

This is arguably worse than the current system.

Fights can and will be decided by RNG on a regular basis. 

There are perfectly good casinos and DnD groups near my home if I wanted to play dice games.

You do realize this is how it already works in-game don't you? What he is saying is that there should be more leeway instead of such a short time before engine death.

[Rattlesnake]

7 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

You do realize this is how it already works in-game don't you? What he is saying is that there should be more leeway instead of such a short time before engine death.

In the current game you get what, maybe an extra minute or two by grace of the dice? Under this proposal you get anywhere between what we have now and effectively infinite WEP.

Shall we also determine how many G the pilot can pull by RNG? How about whether or not one gets structural failure when hit by a given shell? 

And some planes would still have enormous advantages over others due to basically arbitrary choices by the manual writers.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Rattlesnake said:

In the current game you get what, maybe an extra minute or two by grace of the dice? Under this proposal you get anywhere between what we have now and effectively infinite WEP.

 

I don't see the problem, if anything it'd be more realistic than the current system.

[Rattlesnake]

53 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

I don't see the problem, if anything it'd be more realistic than the current system.

I already explained the problems in detail. If you set the chances very low then all you’ve done is given infinite WEP with the occasional infuriating RNG screw-over. If you set them higher then arbitrary choices by manual writers will still have unrealistic impact.

The only 100% “realistic” system would be infinite WEP, but you get chewed out for using it needlessly. Good luck trying to simulate that!

Just giving all the planes 15 minutes at a go has the virtue of simplicity, nothing would have to be changed except a few values in the code.

 

[Panthera]

I wouldn't mind if the limits were removed altogether, but I also see the potential gameplay issues with doing so. Hence the only mid way solution I can think of is to give all the engines a 5 min WEP limit at cleared boost pressures, and 10 min WEP limit if they are using water/water methanol injection. Every engine should then have a 1 min safety buffer and a cool down period of no longer than 5 min. Furthermore all engines should be able to recharge WEP at combat power.

 

That would be my solution, but I also understand if some wouldn't like this as it is a compromise, but it's the best I can think of that doesn't interfere too much with the developers wish of people using their engines more realistically.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Panthera

[Legioneod]

Just now, Panthera said:

I wouldn't mind if the limits were removed altogether, but I also see the potential gameplay issues with doing so. Hence the only mid way solution I can think of is to give all the engines a 5 min WEP limit at cleared boost pressures, and 10 min WEP limit if they are using water/water methanol injection. Every engine should then have a 1 min safety buffer and a cool down period of no longer than 5 min. Furthermore all engines should be able to recharge WEP at combat power.

 

That would be my solution, but I also understand if some wouldn't like this as it is a compromise, but it's the best I can think of that doesn't interfere too much with the developers wish of people using their engines more realistically.

 

In all honesty I don't see how this would effect gameplay all that much, nothing would change. The top performance of all aircraft will remain the same, it just allows them to go for longer.

Literally the only thing that would be different would be players could go faster for longer, thats it.

Actual performance will not change.

 

Players already fly in a very unrealistic way, so the removal of timers wouldn't do any more harm imo.

[Rattlesnake]

21 minutes ago, Panthera said:

I wouldn't mind if the limits were removed altogether, but I also see the potential gameplay issues with doing so. Hence the only mid way solution I can think of is to give all the engines a 5 min WEP limit at cleared boost pressures, and 10 min WEP limit if they are using water/water methanol injection. Every engine should then have a 1 min safety buffer and a cool down period of no longer than 5 min. Furthermore all engines should be able to recharge WEP at combat power.

 

That would be my solution, but I also understand if some wouldn't like this as it is a compromise, but it's the best I can think of that doesn't interfere too much with the developers wish of people using their engines more realistically.

I’d roll with 15 minutes WEP all around since every bit of evidence I’ve seen suggests that engines could and regularly did survive being run at WEP at least that long.

 

There’s not much point to a water injected/non water-infected dichotomy in WEP times. Water injection simply lets an engine run at higher boost pressure than they reckoned would be safe from detonation for *any length* of time, whereas WEP without water is just the highest setting they reckon is fairly safe. Water injection settings should obviously only be accessibly while the water lasts, of course.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[HR_Zunzun]

12 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

I’d roll with 15 minutes WEP all around since every bit of evidence I’ve seen suggests that engines could and regularly did survive being run at WEP at least that long.

 

There’s not much point to a water injected/non water-infected dichotomy in WEP times. Water injection simply lets an engine run at higher boost pressure than they reckoned would be safe from detonation for *any length* of time, whereas WEP without water is just the highest setting they reckon is fairly safe. Water injection settings should obviously only be accessibly while the water lasts, of course.

 

Sounds reasonable. Others mentioned raising the combat time instead. Or reducing the recharging time. Any of those (or a combination of them) should be easy to implement without drastically changing the current system and/or introducing a more complex engine simulation system.

[Sgt_Joch]

43 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

Players already fly in a very unrealistic way, so the removal of timers wouldn't do any more harm imo.

 

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.

[JtD]

I don't understand how balance can be a point regarding an issue of a technical / historical nature.

[Legioneod]

9 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

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.

Problem s that P-51D didn't use water injection and the P-47 had 15 min worth of water.

You can't nit pick with each aircraft.

 

I honestly don't see a huge performance boost from removing WEP timers, it's not like the aircraft suddenly can go some crazy speeds.

The maximum possible performance remains exactly as it is now except for the fact that they could use it longer.

 

Balance should not even be a consideration.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Legioneod

[LColony_Kong]

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.

 

 

[Sgt_Joch]

17 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

Balance should not even be a consideration.

 

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.

[Legioneod]

6 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.

The whole point of increasing WEP of the P-47 was to get it to realistic limits. The P-47 had 15min of water and could run it for the full 15 min without killing the engine, this isnt possible in-game without the absurd 10 (or more) min break between uses.

 

I would rather have no limits and be outperformed by k4s all day rather than have limits and have my engine quit on me when I really need it.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Legioneod

[LColony_Kong]

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. 

[Kurfurst]

43 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.

 

Uhm, I see, an artificial 1 minute WEP was fine, as long as it only effected Axis planes. Its suddenly no longer fine where Axis planes happen to have 

 

43 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

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.

 

Or just 

- Add an option for 20/30mm cannons for all US planes, so it would be on par with 20/30mm cannon equipped German planes.

- Give them randomly 30-50 % more power what they historically had, so they would be on par with German planes.

- Give both German and American planes unlimited WEP, so they could be on par with Russian planes

etc.

 

Or just make no exceptions to anyone. Yes timers are annoying. Yes they are limited to whatever number is in the manual. Not that its going to ever happen, its a rather slippery slope, and its better to have the same standards apply to ALL planes, no exceptions from the rule, they all have one standard of modelling. 

 

43 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

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.

 

Its a simulation. If you want balance considerations, there is always war thunder.

10 hours ago, Legioneod said:

All aircraft should have the same recharge times at the same power modes.

 

That's fairly reasonable, even without going into too much fuss between how cooling or radials / inlines work.

[Sgt_Joch]

14 minutes ago, Fumes said:

Well its because removing the limits is more realistic. 

 

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.

10 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

 

Or just make no exceptions to anyone. Yes timers are annoying. Yes they are limited to whatever number is in the manual. Not that its going to ever happen, its a rather slippery slope, and its better to have the same standards apply to ALL planes, no exceptions from the rule, they all have one standard of modelling. 

 

 

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

[Gambit21]

36 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The P-47 had 15min of water and could run it for the full 15 min without killing the engine.

 

^

 

[LColony_Kong]

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. 

[Panthera]

1 hour 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.

 

Seems like a very onesided solution.

 

Remember there is historical, scientific & logical basis for the 109F & G's with 1.42ata cleared engines to have no WEP time limit at all. In other words atm these aircraft are unhistorically limited ingame to below even what their manuals suggests. Objectively they should have the same 5 min WEP limit as the Merlin engined aircraft, even if both could run for longer without issue.

 

Same goes for the P-47, which should be able to run for 10 min with water injection (same as the MW50 equipped axis aircraft, to be consistent), and also should be able to recharge WEP A LOT more rapidly than it currently does. 

 

As for the P-51, it didn't come with water injection, so putting it on the same level as aircraft with this objectively doesn't make any sense.

 

In short if we are going to apply WEP time limits ingame we are going to have to be consistent about it, either that or it's better to simply remove the time limits altogether.

[Sgt_Joch]

10 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Remember there is historical, scientific & logical basis for the 109F & G's with 1.42ata cleared engines to have no WEP time limit at all. In other words atm these aircraft are unhistorically limited ingame to below even what their manuals suggests. Objectively they should have the same 5 min WEP limit as the Merlin engined aircraft, even if both could run for longer without issue.

 

 

what?

 

no check your facts,

 

the DB engines in the F series was limited to 1 minute.

 

The DB 605 engine in the G series was blocked at 1.3 ATA most of 1943 due to oil fires, pistons burning out, engine failing due to low oil pressure, etc., etc. etc. The argument that there was no limit after than has very little basis and makes no logical sense.

 

but this is off topic, since there are already numerous topics dealing with this subject.

 

Personally, I have been convinced by the logical arguments put forth today, namely that: 1) balance should not be a consideration; and 2) that time limits should be modeled strictly as per the operating manuals. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by Sgt_Joch

[Panthera]

2 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

The DB 605 engine in the G series was blocked at 1.3 ATA most of 1943 due to oil fires, piston burning out, engine failing due to low oïl pressure, etc., etc. etc. The argument that there was no limit after than has very little basis and makes no logical sense.

 

Ofcourse it does, there litterally being no limit mentioned in the manuals where 1.42ata is cleared. We also know why the engines failed and how it was solved. 

 

What wouldn't make any sense is if these engine still suffered problem at 1.42ata and were then cleared for said boost pressure regardless, that litterally is a non sensical argument that no engineer would ever agree to.

[Sgt_Joch]

6 minutes ago, Panthera said:

 

Ofcourse it does, there litterally being no limit mentioned in the manuals where 1.42ata is cleared. 

 

yes there is, you are looking at the wrong manuals. Again this has been dealt with before.

[Panthera]

16 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

yes there is, you are looking at the wrong manuals. Again this has been dealt with before.

 

Saying it has been dealt with is not an argument.

 

[Stilico]

This bears repeating for the people saying that time limits encourage more realistic flying. When America sent P-40's to Russia, the Russians looked at the operations manual, wiped their butts with it, and then proceeded to operate their P-40's at well beyond their suggested time limits. By doing this, the P-40's engines wore out very quickly, but to the best of my knowledge didn't spontaneously combust. With the current timers in game, there is actual evidence proving that we're being arbitrarily forced to fly these planes in unrealistic and historically incorrect ways.

 

The only reason to have these time limits is to artificially reduce performance of various aircraft and try and force more realistic flying when in transit, no matter the cost, because that's obviously what most pilots care about. The travel times. Did it ever occur to anyone that, if you care about how your flying in transit, you'll probably be willing to actually fly historically. Flying historically means long flight times and the need to conserve fuel, like on the full real servers like TAW.

 

Seems like all people care about is balancing the game around WoL.

 

Who even cares about balance? WW2 wasn't balanced. Planes have clear advantages and disadvantages, but you can shoot down a K4 in an I-16 if you want to. Y'know, actually, let's go all in for balance! Let's just have servers of 109's vs 109's, or Yaks vs Yaks. Let's just turn this into War Thunder and have American P-47's vs German P-47's, all taking off in equal numbers at the same time to have everything nice and balanced!

 

Bah!

Edited December 12, 2018 by Stilicho

[Sgt_Joch]

23 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

This bears repeating for the people saying that time limits encourage more realistic flying. When America sent P-40's to Russia, the Russians looked at the operations manual, wiped their butts with it, and then proceeded to operate their P-40's at well beyond their suggested time limits. By doing this, the P-40's engines wore out very quickly, but to the best of my knowledge didn't spontaneously combust. With the current timers in game, there is actual evidence proving that we're being arbitrarily forced to fly these planes in unrealistic and historically incorrect ways.

 

That is another one of those quotes that gets blown out of proportion. It is all based on this statement:

 

Quote

It is true that initially the pilots attempted to improve its flight characteristics, primarily by using "war emergency power" during battle. They did this intuitively - if Soviet engines at maximum power roared like beasts, then the Allison only changed its tone slightly and everything seemed normal. The payment came due quickly, however. At "war emergency power" (all of 10 minutes with the Allison engine) the engine quickly wore out and the power fell off markedly. As a result (according to reports from the regiment engineer), over a period of a month the maximum speed of the Kittyhawks did not exceed 350 - 400 kmh. The regiment got rid of them at the first opportunity - on 27 April 1943 they were transferred to 16th Guards IAP (four serviceable aircraft with pilots). This regiment was fighting in Airacobras, and therefore the P-40E pilots gradually transitioned to them. The Kittyhawks were actively employed only in March and April, and in August were handed off to PVO.

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/index.htm

 

we have no idea what the Russians considered WEP, since the reference to a 10 minute limit does not match what is in the manual. They might be referring to 42" military power for all we know.

 

[Stilico]

7 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

we have no idea what the Russians considered WEP, since the reference to a 10 minute limit does not match what is in the manual. They might be referring to 42" military power for all we know.

 

You do realize that's considered combat power in game and is limited to a whopping 5 minutes? My point still stands.

[Guest deleted@83466]

7 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

This is arguably worse than the current system.

Fights can and will be decided by RNG on a regular basis. 

There are perfectly good casinos and DnD groups near my home if I wanted to play dice games.

 

Actually no argument at all, because you are simply wrong, and have no idea what you're talking about.  And I don't care much for your condescending tone. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[=RvE=Windmills]

Randomness is bad, there is no discussion to be had there.

 

How would you feel if every few fights your engine would just randomly quit at the earliest dice roll because you got unlucky? Or you are keeping formation with your wingman in a hard climb and suddenly one of your engines just quits, despite both running the same settings?

 

That's just really bad.

[Rattlesnake]

11 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Actually no argument at all, because you are simply wrong, and have no idea what you're talking about.  And I don't care much for your condescending tone. 

>Advocates a system that makes use *random* engine failures.

>Tells me I’m wrong when I say this will end with fights decided by RNG insread of pilot skill.

 Is the problem that you don’t know what RNG stands for, or do you simply have an interest in the game being less skill-based?

[Guest deleted@83466]

Just now, Rattlesnake said:

>Advocates a system that makes use *random* engine failures.

>Tells me I’m wrong when I say this will end with fights decided by RNG insread of pilot skill.

 Is the problem that you don’t know what RNG stands for, or do you simply have an interest in the game being less skill-based?

 

The proposal was for a relaxation of current engine limits by making the chance of engine failure much less than it currently is.  If I run something for a minute over the current "limit", there wouldn't be hardly chance of failure at all.  If I get up to where I've been running it for 10 or 15 minutes over the limit, the chance of the engine failing is going to be a lot higher than it was if I only ran it for a short time like that.  Perfectly reasonable. 

 

If you want to create a strawman, by invoking images of dice and casinos, nobody is going to fall for it.  Indeed, the "chance" of failure is indeed statistical, instead of a physical/thermal/material modelling, which is probably never going to happen due to development resources.

[Rattlesnake]

1 hour ago, Stilicho said:

 

 

Who even cares about balance? WW2 wasn't balanced.

Everyone who wants there to actually be a multiplayer population in this game, so that we have options *besides* War Thunder.

The problem with WT, besides the grinding annoyance, is the fact that simulator mode is deader than Il-2 MP. The whole external view, mouse-flown thing of the other modes is not even remotely the same game of air-chess as more conventional flight sims and I haven’t any interest in it.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Rattlesnake

[=475FG=_DAWGER]

On 12/11/2018 at 10:44 AM, =475FG=DAWGER said:

If there needs to be an unrealistic method of coercing players to treat the engines in a somewhat realistic fashion (not flying around at combat power all the time) the best way to do that is to raise fuel burn when at the power setting one is trying to limit to a level high enough to discourage the unwanted behavior.

 

This allows players use the power levels as needed and will punish those with poor planning and decision making.

 

The current method is horrendous and enough to keep many players from the title. 

 

On 12/11/2018 at 10:52 AM, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

That would just exhange one unrealistic methid for another.

Realistic engine modeling would be the ideal but that would mean folks could abuse the engines in an unrealistic fashion because there is no fear of death AND you get a brand new engine every sortie.

 

Total realism does not automatically result in total realism.

 

 

 

In the real world, sweating a fuel situation due to unexpected factors is a very real thing. Introducing a method of influencing behavior through the use of unrealistically high fuel burns at combat and WEP actually works pretty well. I used this method in flight modeling for another game that was limited in options with regard to combat and WEP settings. In events with long distances, fuel planning and tight control of WEP usage were critical. Escort missions were especially fun when escorts who engaged early and often had to turn back due to low fuel. Savvy LW commanders who could cycle their assets took advantage of this. And while the modelling was not strictly realistic the behavioral results WERE REALISTIC.

 

Why you might ask?

The primary reason is fear of death in the real world would result in pilots calling bingo fuel at a much higher fuel state than we do in a PC game.

 

Fuel burns at combat and WEP are much higher and fuel gauges are notoriously inaccurate, especially in the era being simulated.

 

Weather in the real world Europe is notoriously unpredictable, especially in the era simulated.

 

Navigation was MUCH more difficult than what is simulated.

 

Having the engine blow up in the middle of a tense dogfight when the timer runs out does not result in immersion, just frustration.

 

So IF THERE MUST BE AN UNREALISTIC INFLUENCER, I would prefer it be a fuel burn penalty

[Guest deleted@83466]

5 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Everyone who wants there to actually be a multiplayer population in this game, so that we have options *besides* War Thunder.

The problem with WT, besides the grinding annoyance, is the fact that simulator mode is deader than Il-2 MP. The whole external view, mouse-flown thing of the other modes is not even remotely the same game of air-chess as more conventional flight sims and I haven’t even any interest in it.

 

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.

[Rattlesnake]

11 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

The proposal was for a relaxation of current engine limits by making the chance of engine failure much less than it currently is.  If I run something for a minute over the current "limit", there wouldn't be hardly chance of failure at all.  If I get up to where I've been running it for 10 or 15 minutes over the limit, the chance of the engine failing is going to be a lot higher than it was if I only ran it for a short time like that.  Perfectly reasonable. 

 

If you want to create a strawman, by invoking images of dice and casinos, nobody is going to fall for it.  Indeed, the "chance" of failure is indeed statistical, instead of a physical/thermal/material modelling, which is probably never going to happen due to development resources.

If you have a random engine failure mechanic then engines will randomly fail. And at other times randomly NOT fail. Such a mechanic is by definition not predictable. Since engine failure in the middle of a fight tends to lead to losing that fight you WILL see fights decided by what is essentially a roll of the dice. To deny this is to either deny clear logic or deny the meaning of words themselves, such as “random”.

6 minutes 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.

I’ve sat in a plane once or twice maybe, just enough to kinda know what them thar stick and pedals on the floor do...

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[Stilico]

2 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

Everyone who wants there to actually be a multiplayer population in this game, so that we have options *besides* War Thunder.

 

 

I can't begrudge your desire to have a good MP scene, but I don't see MP becoming any more of a one sided affair than it already is if they do away with the timers. As it is, certain aircraft will dominate others in a 1 vs 1 fight. Throw a P-47 and a K4 at each other on equal footing and the 109 should tear the P-47 apart, but that doesn't mean the P-47 is a bad plane. It just isn't meant for that. Plus, the number of players a team has, and how many of them are actually working the objectives, is usually what determines the outcome of a match.

 

I don't see balancing, or the lack of it, really affecting much that isn't just people complaining that their 109 couldn't out turn a Spitfire, or their Yak couldn't catch up with a 190. The nations that were designing these planes were doing so with their enemies in mind, and I just don't see there being so much of a performance difference that you need to fudge the numbers or game mechanics to artificially help certain planes. Its not like they were throwing Camels at 190's.

Edited December 12, 2018 by Stilicho

[LColony_Kong]

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.

[Guest deleted@83466]

57 minutes ago, Fumes said:

 

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.

 

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. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by SeaSerpent