Sky_Wolf Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 What single improvement to the damage model do you want to see? (select only one option) This poll uses suggestions listed by [DBS]Browning on page 7 of this thread: 1
Dutch2 Posted February 6, 2021 Posted February 6, 2021 More realistic damage surface and not that black spots like we have right now, its not that big but would be a nice to have. 3
INVADER_WARHAWK Posted February 6, 2021 Posted February 6, 2021 Engine fires improvement: Cutting fuel suply to an engine on fire to be effective at reducing-extinguishing the fire 2
Avimimus Posted February 6, 2021 Posted February 6, 2021 I'd like to see a small random chance of bomb fuses failing (i.e. bombs prematurely detonating or failing to detonate). It would make it slightly riskier to rely on extremely low altitude time delayed fuses. I'd also like to see the occasional larger or more energetic fragment (to make it slightly riskier to drop near the danger altitude). Gun jams for the Mk-108, Mk-101, Hispano, ShKAS... would be good. Even if they only happened one out of a few dozen times, it would give an extra reason to value not relying on a single large cannon (or overly advanced gun). I'd go with a very small random chance of failure... rather than trying to reconstruct the gun jam chance perfectly accurately and modelling all the contributing factors.
Sky_Wolf Posted February 6, 2021 Author Posted February 6, 2021 So far the results of the poll are surprisingly to me. 62.5% would prefer to see system damage modeling (hydraulic, electrical, etc.). Why would so many people prefer this option? It seems to me that the reason is because it would increase the likelihood of getting a "kill": if you eliminate the functionality of your opponents' systems, their plane will crash into the ground in no time. So that's why the people who voted in this poll overwhelmingly selected "System damage modeling". Do I have this right?
DD_Arthur Posted February 7, 2021 Posted February 7, 2021 11 hours ago, Sky_Wolf said: Do I have this right? Isn't it because 'system damage modelling' actually covers all the other options? ie; item 3 Landing gear damage modeling (e.g. gear dropping, gear jamming, gear loss) is part of system damage modelling? 3
Sky_Wolf Posted February 7, 2021 Author Posted February 7, 2021 2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said: Isn't it because 'system damage modelling' actually covers all the other options? ie; item 3 Landing gear damage modeling (e.g. gear dropping, gear jamming, gear loss) is part of system damage modelling? No, landing gear damage modeling is definitely not part of system damage modeling based on the way things were categorized in the poll. In a landing gear damage model, damage to the gear would only be modeled. In a hydraulic system damage model, damage to the entire hydraulic system would be modeled. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand this if you carefully re-read the poll options. My conclusion stands.
DD_Arthur Posted February 7, 2021 Posted February 7, 2021 17 minutes ago, Sky_Wolf said: My conclusion stands. Fine but the categorys in your poll all refer to the damage of an aircraft's systems. System damage modeling (e.g. hydraulic system failure, electrical system failure) Flaps, gear, guns, bomb release, bomb doors, etc. are all aircraft systems operated by hydraulic, air or electrical systems. Your first four options are all covered by the fifth option. You don't seem smart enough to understand this.
Sky_Wolf Posted February 7, 2021 Author Posted February 7, 2021 No, you still don't get it. My first four options are not all covered by the fifth option. For example, an electrical or hydraulic system failure would not result in bomb detonation or bomb release from impact, and would not result in the loss of landing gears, and would not result in ammo detonation, and would not result in localized flap damage. A hydraulic or electrical system failure would result in failure of ALL components of the aircraft that are dependent on hydraulic or electrical power. Therefore, the options I give in the poll are distinctive and the fifth option does not cover all the other options, as you claim. This is quite clear to any reasonable thinking person - just look at the options again and see the examples given (e.g. bomb detonation has absolutely nothing to do with hydraulic or electrical system damage).
Mitthrawnuruodo Posted February 7, 2021 Posted February 7, 2021 (edited) I get what you're trying to say, but it's not clear because just about every part falls into one or more recognized aircraft systems, e.g., flap damage is damage to the flight control system and engine damage is damage to the propulsion system. "Systems" is an extremely broad category. I have to agree with @DD_Arthur here. We can't really conclude anything without knowing what systems respondents have in mind. Edited February 7, 2021 by Mitthrawnuruodo
Sky_Wolf Posted February 7, 2021 Author Posted February 7, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said: I get what you're trying to say, but it's not clear because just about every part falls into one or more recognized aircraft systems, e.g., flap damage is damage to the flight control system and engine damage is damage to the propulsion system. "Systems" is an extremely broad category. I have to agree with @DD_Arthur here. We can't really conclude anything without knowing what systems respondents have in mind. Fascinating. I suspect the "systems respondents have in mind" will bear close relation to the poll options they vote for. So if respondents selected "System damage modeling (e.g. hydraulic system failure, electrical system failure)", they have whole-system failure in mind. If they vote for "Landing gear damage modeling (e.g. gear dropping, gear jamming, gear loss)", they have localized landing gear damage in mind. Edited February 7, 2021 by Sky_Wolf
FoxbatRU Posted February 8, 2021 Posted February 8, 2021 Other damage modeling: damage to the crew. Now it is, but it is not felt so much. Although, maybe I'm wrong.
-=PHX=-SuperEtendard Posted February 8, 2021 Posted February 8, 2021 (edited) Other damage modelling: proper incendiary rounds for all nations, also improvements to aerodynamic damage for non explosive projectiles, increase the surface ripped off with low 6 o clock hits by non explosive round, model rounds tumbling and subsequent exit holes. Edited February 8, 2021 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard 2
[CPT]Crunch Posted February 13, 2021 Posted February 13, 2021 Whats the point in deep systems damage modeling when we have no access to the majority of system controls?
Rjel Posted February 15, 2021 Posted February 15, 2021 I voted for gear damage where the gear would drop. However, I would also like to see gear doors ripping off on the Fw-190s and the 109s reduced in frequency. Also, it’s hard for me to believe that the tail wheels and main landing gear tires would be so easily shot off those same airframes. Flattened by gunfire for certain. But they’re both bolted on. I can’t imagine they’d come off so easily and still be robust enough to handle the load when landing.
Recommended Posts