Reasonable death rate when parachute jumping (Flying Circus)

[J2_Bidu]

Type of improvement: Fairness/Historical accuracy.

 

Explanation of proposals: Reasonable death rate when parachute jumping (Flying Circus)

 

Benefits: The existence of risk when jumping from the plane will reduce abuse of this feature by Central players, bringing some balance to the fact Entente players have no parachutes at all, and there is the feeling the Central players have a free ride. According to this source, one third of those who jumped (in 1918) died.

 

[SharpeXB]

Yes this would be a great idea. First because it’s realistic and second because you get the encouragement to try and ditch rather than bail out which, let’s agree, is the most fun you can have in a flight sim!

This should be a factor in the WWII aircraft as well. Parachutes are not foolproof. 

[migmadmarine]

Or have it as an option, I can see some people getting very annoyed at this. 

 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

Or have it as an option, I can see some people getting very annoyed at this. 

Why? Perfectly reliable parachutes aren’t realistic. Especially in WWI. A few aces I can think of who were killed in chute failures, Hans-Joachim Marseille (really a bail out failure but that could be factored in too ie exiting your aircraft at high speed) and Erich Loewenhardt in WWI

[migmadmarine]

But there are a number of people who fly who aren't looking for 100% realism, so it seems to me it ought to be an option for those people. 

 

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

But there are a number of people who fly who aren't looking for 100% realism, so it seems to me it ought to be an option for those people. 

I would categorize parachute physics (if there was such an attribute) under things like flight and damage models which aren’t player adjustable. 
Besides, again... it makes the game more fun because you have more encouragement to ditch your plane. 

[migmadmarine]

But damage can be disabled, and engine limits can be disabled, so why not this? Sure, multiplayer servers will generally have it enabled, but plenty in singular player might not want it, so why not give them the option to disable it? What is the drawback of giving players the choice, but having server settings over-ride it?

Edited December 14, 2020 by migmadmarine

[[DBS]Browning]

People don't like it when they die due to random chance, rather than due to the way they played.

Parachute survival in the war was not a roll of the dice. It shouldn't be ingame. Instead, it depended on many factors.

 

Perhaps a better solution would be to have the parachute fail if the player attempts to bail out in bad conditions i.e. not flying straight and level.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

People don't like it when they die due to random chance,

War is hell. By that reasoning we would get rid of AAA fire

2 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Parachute survival in the war was not a roll of the dice.

I can’t imagine there are any real statistics especially from WWI. Reliable parachutes are a relatively modern invention. 

2 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Perhaps a better solution would be to have the parachute fail if the player attempts to bail out in bad conditions i.e. not flying straight and level.

That would certainly be a good idea. This game isn’t really a parachute simulator though. I just like having to weigh my options for survival. The best most immersive missions for me was “Dead is Dead” Desastersoft in CloD where you knew the chute could fail. So evaluating your damaged plane and your chance of ditching was all part of the sim. 

[[DBS]Browning]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

War is hell. By that reasoning we would get rid of AAA fire

 

AAA isn't entirely roll of the dice.

The player can play in such a way that increases, decreases or even totally negates the AAA risk they face.

 

I'm all for a higher parachute failure rate, just so long as it doesn't strip anyone of agency.

There is nothing realistic about the PC throwing a die to decide if your parachute opens. Failures happened in the war, but they were not the result of random chance.

[J2_Bidu]

23 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

There is nothing realistic about the PC throwing a die to decide if your parachute opens. Failures happened in the war, but they were not the result of random chance.

 

Nothing us the result if random chance. Or is it? Still, advocates of determinism and of quantum uncertainty don't really have different strategic options when facing life's choices... I'd actually say they hace no choice at all, although they may be chosing at random...

[[DBS]Browning]

2 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Nothing us the result if random chance. Or is it? Still, advocates of determinism and of quantum uncertainty don't really have different strategic options when facing life's choices... I'd actually say they hace no choice at all, although they may be chosing at random...

 

Sure, but more than simply not being the result of chance, parachute failures where the result of the pilot's actions in the way they prepared and used the parachute.

[J2_Bidu]

31 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

Sure, but more than simply not being the result of chance, parachute failures where the result of the pilot's actions in the way they prepared and used the parachute.

 

Yes, I understand, I mean there's nothing wrong in abstracting some of the complexities of the situation, especially those you can't control anyway, by using randomness. We might want to restrict this randomness to equipment failure, entanglements, etc, and assume the pilot would do everything else in his power correctly.

[[DBS]Browning]

31 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Yes, I understand, I mean there's nothing wrong in abstracting some of the complexities of the situation, especially those you can't control anyway, by using randomness. We might want to restrict this randomness to equipment failure, entanglements, etc, and assume the pilot would do everything else in his power correctly.

 

Yes, I agree in principle of course. Such abstractions are necessary if we want to simulate a complex world.

 

I suspect the failure rate of even early parachutes was low in ideal conditions (i.e. when jumping from static balloons) and perhaps almost as low when jumping from a plane in straight and level flight. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the failure rate was very might when jumping from a spinning, burning plane with a wounded pilot.

 

If the parachute failure rate was linked to the state of the pilot and plane, it would give agency back to the player and arguably result in a more realistic simulation at the same time. Instead of saying "my pilot died because there is a 1/3 chance of death on a bailout. I had no control over this; I'm a spectator to the events", the player would say "I died because I bailed out when my plane was spinning. I should have bailed earlier, in slow and level flight".

Edited December 15, 2020 by [DBS]Browning

[Talisman]

For WW1 aircraft Flying Circus, the OP provided a data source for one third of relevant aircraft emergency parachute users ending up dead .  If that source holds up as reasonable, then I suggest it would be feasible and correct for Flying circus developers to introduce this historical one third death rate on a mathematical basis to keep things as simple as possible.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[SharpeXB]

11 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

I suspect the failure rate of even early parachutes was low in ideal conditions (i.e. when jumping from static balloons) and perhaps almost as low when jumping from a plane in straight and level flight. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the failure rate was very might when jumping from a spinning, burning plane with a wounded pilot.

Certainly a big factor would be in how the pilot exited the aircraft. But I don’t know if there is any reliable data from WWII on the subject. 
I do get from what I’ve read that pilots or aircrew had no real parachute training. Not like paratroopers did. “When the time comes, you’ll figure it out” was about all. There are specific instructions for exiting fighters but I don’t imagine that was practiced or drilled at. In real life combat it would be a crapshoot but better than the alternative. German pilots I get distrusted parachutes, maybe because of Marseilles and bailing out over enemy territory on the eastern front was a death sentence. So they would ditch if at all possible.  
Pilots were not trained to release the parachute in a stable free fall the way a modern skydiver is. They could tumble out of control and get the lines wrapped around themselves. Etc etc

Edited December 16, 2020 by SharpeXB

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I think @[DBS]Browning brings up an important point.

 

The game does not model purely random equipment failures that are likely to have significant (deadly or mission-ending) consequences. This is justifiable for enjoyable gameplay and skill-based competition.

 

Random parachute failures would conflict with this precedent.

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

Random parachute failures would conflict with this precedent.

Well this would have to be random since trying to do some sort of modeling is probably too complex. Apart from simply considering the speed or stability of the plane. And that’s only part of the equation. Parachuting is a complex subject and beyond this simulation really. Bottom line, bailing out IRL wasn’t a 100% certainty of survival. 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

18 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Well this would have to be random since trying to do some sort of modeling is probably too complex. Apart from simply considering the speed or stability of the plane. And that’s only part of the equation. Parachuting is a complex subject and beyond this simulation really. Bottom line, bailing out IRL wasn’t a 100% certainty of survival. 

 

Of course. I'm just bringing up that the game usually avoids random failures such as this.

 

Would you also be in favour of events such as random engine malfunctions or random airframe structural failures? These were quite common in reality, but their value in games is debatable.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

Would you also be in favour of events such as random engine malfunctions or random airframe structural failures? These were quite common in reality, but their value in games is debatable.

Sure. Bring on the failures. But you have to get enough feedback via instruments etc to evaluate them. Right now I’m not sure that’s done. You can get failures due to damage already. 
As for game value, handling damaged aircraft is big fun. So is evaluating your chances of ditching and handling failures vs bailing out. 

[cardboard_killer]

I've always been a bit amazed that there wasn't much pushback on the relative ease bailing out is in the game. Watching a cockpit engulfed in flames opening up and a non-human torch parachuting to safety punctures my suspension of disbelief. But it's just a game.

[Enceladus828]

In IL-2 Cliffs of Dover there are occasions where the parachute fails to deploy.

[J2_Bidu]

20 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

I think @[DBS]Browning brings up an important point.

 

The game does not model purely random equipment failures that are likely to have significant (deadly or mission-ending) consequences. This is justifiable for enjoyable gameplay and skill-based competition.

 

Random parachute failures would conflict with this precedent.

 

Thank you, @Mitthrawnuruodo I think you just hit a critical aspect.

 

This might be introduced as a server "realism" setting, but is probably a bad idea if imposed. Personally, I totally favor its existence, as I also would favor the occurrence of engine failures, etc. which were totally on the minds of pilots back then and influenced their decisions quite often. And apparently, not only back then, for example: «Typically I enter aerobatics at 500ft to give myself more than sufficient altitude to recover the aircraft if I experience any engine issues», "Recreating the Fokker D.VII" (https://vintageaviationecho.com/fokker-d-vii/)

Edited December 16, 2020 by J2_Bidu

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Enceladus said:

In IL-2 Cliffs of Dover there are occasions where the parachute fails to deploy.

Combine that with the Dead-is-Dead Desastersoft Campaigns (like Ironman Mode here) and you get immersion! ?

[Bremspropeller]

Reasonable death rate when parachute jumping

 

This would make for a great sign at the entrance of your local airfield.

[Charlo-VR]

We pretty much do at many drop zones ?

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, Charlo-VR said:

We pretty much do at many drop zones ?

 

I transported a patient by ambulance once in Orange County who had been in a skydiving accident. To say she was in bad shape after that would be a great understatement.

[Charlo-VR]

10 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

I transported a patient by ambulance once in Orange County who had been in a skydiving accident. To say she was in bad shape after that would be a great understatement.

 

I may have known her if she had been jumping at Perris in the 1990s or within the last few years.

[LukeFF]

14 minutes ago, Charlo-VR said:

I may have known her if she had been jumping at Perris in the 1990s or within the last few years.

 

I think it was around 2010.

[SharpeXB]

Nearly all skydiving fatalities today happen with a deployed canopy. A chute not opening or malfunctioning is very rare. That wouldn’t have been the case in WWII though. Early civilian skydiving was very dangerous. 

3 hours ago, Charlo-VR said:

 

I may have known her if she had been jumping at Perris in the 1990s or within the last few years.

My brother jumps at Perris ?

[Guest deleted@83466]

On 12/15/2020 at 7:23 PM, SharpeXB said:

Well this would have to be random since trying to do some sort of modeling is probably too complex. Apart from simply considering the speed or stability of the plane. And that’s only part of the equation. Parachuting is a complex subject and beyond this simulation really. Bottom line, bailing out IRL wasn’t a 100% certainty of survival. 

 

Well, once the pilot is free and clear of the aircraft, I guess it would have to be a RNG.  But a lot of pilots died by smacking into a part of the aircraft they were bailing from.  I was doing a qm a while back, and the AI pilot bailed and went right into my propeller (thankfully it's a game, and was spared the graphics) .  The propeller was smashed.  The AI pilot's chute deployed and he was alive and well (wasn't dangling dead in the chute).  More recently, my plane was shot to hell, and you know how when you hit Ctrl-E, it goes to third party view?  It looked like my virtual pilot would have slammed into the tail, but went right through and was none the worse for the wear.  The fact that this pilot figure damaged my propeller that one time though indicates that the object has mass and substance.  So chute not deploying might be handled at random, but in others, a deadly bail out could be figured out physically, not unlike when you blow somebodies wing off and collide with it.  Just need the pilot to take damage too, not just the object it collides with.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by SeaSerpent

[Guest deleted@83466]

When I was in my 20's, "young, dumb, and full of cum", I jumped out of airplanes 5 times.  I remember each one, because they were all uniquely terrifying, and an exercise in I hope nothing goes wrong because if it does, I have no clue what to do.  Ok.  I'm a man, now.  Now f*&ck that Sh!t! Only a sicko masochist would throw himself out of an airplane to descend on a piece of fabric ?.

Edited December 18, 2020 by SeaSerpent

[Noisemaker]

On 12/18/2020 at 4:25 AM, SeaSerpent said:

When I was in my 20's, "young, dumb, and full of cum", I jumped out of airplanes 5 times.  I remember each one, because they were all uniquely terrifying, and an exercise in I hope nothing goes wrong because if it does, I have no clue what to do.  Ok.  I'm a man, now.  Now f*&ck that Sh!t! Only a sicko masochist would throw himself out of an airplane to descend on a piece of fabric ?.

You have to admit though, at the time, it was pretty fun...

[Guest deleted@83466]

7 hours ago, Noisemaker said:

You have to admit though, at the time, it was pretty fun...

 

Ok, I'll admit:  at the time, I felt pretty pretty manly...after I was safely on the ground.  Obviously, I never advanced far enough in the sport to solo (without the instructors on each side of me until it was time to deploy the canopy.)

Edited December 20, 2020 by SeaSerpent

[Charlo-VR]

I’m out jumping today,  but “fun jumping” isn’t nearly as challenging as the military jumps with all that gear. We’re just playing in comparison ?