Lazy implementation of features

[HagarTheHorrible]

 

 

 

Why is it that parachutes have been so lazily implemented into RoF/FC ?

 

It is quite understandable that the Developers want to include features that they feel are important, even if knowingly imperfect as originally implemented, however if there is one thing that IL2 is known for it is the constant update, refinement and improvement.  The developers have even, demonstrably, spent considerable time and resources on making sure that certain technical aspects of aircraft are painstakingly researched, implemented and then explained to the players.

 

I can see why the developers, in the original RoF, might have wanted to include the Heineken parachute (don’t blame me, blame auto correct, that said the updated name is probably just as apt, probably ! ) however, with several years and experience under their belt, it is astonishing that the developers never saw fit to “ground” parachutes on some basis of reality.  Maybe it is just a product of my ignorance, but is it really such a challenge to implement a percentage failure rate ?  I don’t think there is even the slightest contention that early parachutes had their issues and have seen it suggested that a 30% failure rate is not far from the historical reality (not sure where that figure comes from).  Particularly, given that it hugely favours one side over the other, in the multiplayer game, one would have thought they would have been even more cautious over details around their implementation, apparently not.

 

Obviously, as most of you are well aware, this isn’t the only “lazy” design feature, with regards to parachutes as implemented in RoF/FC.  Not only do they work as well as the designer, let alone the user, might have dared hope but they also come with no “ballast” issues.  In a game that is quite particular in apportioning weight, whether fuel bombs, ammunition, guns etc etc, it beggars belief that there is no weight penalty to including a chute in the aircraft load out, especially for a feature that favours one side in particular.

 

Isn’t it about time that the developers “refined” the implementation of parachutes in FC ?

 

It might even lead some users to thinking that there is some form of “unconscious” bias at work within the game.

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by HagarTheHorrible

[Zooropa_Fly]

I would agree about the weight and am surprised it's not modelled-in.

If or when that happens I would certainly like it to be added to the loadout options so one has a choice of taking it or not.

 

Random failures - box of worms the devs might not want to open.

Same could be applied to engine failures, structural failures etc.

Can you imagine !

 

Maybe the 'chutes would have been better left out of ww1 ?

 

S!

[J99_Sizzlorr]

Well I don't see the chute having a big impact in multiplayer. If you shoot down a central pilot you get the victory no matter if he dies crashing or dangles on his chute. If he is over enemy territory (where you actually need to be to win missions in multiplayer) he will be captured which is actually treated the same as beeing dead. If you shoot central pilots down over their own lines you will get the victory even if they use their chutes and you will most likely complete your mission unmolested because it takes time to take off again and fly to the action especially with centrals slow planes. So where exactly does the chute impact multiplayer and favours one side heavily?

Also historical it is correct that central pilots had chutes and entente did not. Like it is correct, that entente pilots have faster planes. No central minded pilots complains about the fast entente planes having a big impact in multiplayer and favouring one side heavily. I say the chute has no impact on the outcome of any multiplayer mission whatsoever. The only thing the chute is good for is when used over own lines, when your slow plane falls appart to preserve your v-life or when playing dead is dead. But I don't remember any multiplayer match beeing decide by a guy having the longest v-life.

Edited May 2, 2021 by J99_Sizzlorr

[Cybermat47]

Random failures sound great until your Ferdinand blows up because it went up a small anthill.

[Monostripezebra]

I don´t really think "random" failures happen nor are they good for any game as mechanic.. unless you wanna play slotmachines. Failures happen for a reason and that is in case of emergency parachutes often down to user error and beeing employed out of parameters, so it is, and was not, historically that random individual parachutes where "bad" but rather the circumstances that had an influence on wether people surivived or not.  But that in a game like Il2, where the ejection sequence is automated and beyond player control, the outcome is more optimistic then history bis also true for the WW2 part.. just think Marseille

 

In the end, parachutes don´t affect gameplay that much, they only matter for the part beyond the direct game, if you care for your V-life.. and if you actually go over the lines, then parachutes don´t mean much (the practical difference between captured and dead is zero).. so as a dolphin brisfit guy I´d rather have a more equal control cable loss probabilities then ahistoric chutes..

 

In the end the Air Board made the decision: (appart from not having the technical innovation of having a backpack chute)

 

“It is the opinion of the board that the presence of such an apparatus might impair the fighting spirit of pilots and cause them to abandon machines which might otherwise be capable of returning to base for repair”.

[Dutch2]

Its not the only aspect thats being a lazy implementation in FC and that is all counting even more when using VR.  Thats why after 20yr of gaming mainly WW1cfs, from RB2 to RoF/WoFF, I now play BoX-VR and very limited FC-VR.  The whole FC, its a bit of a lazy ROF swap job by Uglymedia. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by Dutch2

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Well, it's a game. Personally I like it when my chute just works, my DVII ammo doesn't spontaneously ignite and my engine doesn't randomly stop due to a lack of quality oil, even though neither may be completely realistic. If you think otherwise, you're free to throw a dice and only press ctrl-e if the result is a three or higher. 

 

As for the weight, AFAIK it's not optional to take a chute, you take one by default, so it would make sense if the chute weight is already added to the planes' total weight.

 

I always find it a bit haughty and condescending when wherever the Devs' design decisions don't correspond to one's personal preferences, this is immediately blamed on some perceived "laziness" on the Devs' part.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Well I don't see the chute having a big impact in multiplayer..... I don't remember any multiplayer match beeing decide by a guy having the longest v-life.

Well, not everybody plays to win the mission - quite a few do indeed play to further their streaks.  So chutes may not impact multiplayer matches, but they surely do impact people's play.  Otherwise there'd be no fuss about shooting the things

[J99_Sizzlorr]

11 minutes ago, CfC=76SQN-FatherTed said:

Well, not everybody plays to win the mission - quite a few do indeed play to further their streaks.  So chutes may not impact multiplayer matches, but they surely do impact people's play.  Otherwise there'd be no fuss about shooting the things

You can still further you streak when a central pilot jumps into his chute, I don't see the point unless your goal isn't to further your streak but to end someone elses...

[Talisman]

1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

You can still further you streak when a central pilot jumps into his chute, I don't see the point unless your goal isn't to further your streak but to end someone elses...

Killing the enemy is what war is about and this sim simulates war.  Killing enemy pilots was/is a duty.  We need to get into the full acting part for full immersion.  Just like the poor bloody infantry; think you are safe in your trench, well think again because we shoot you there too just like you are in the open attacking us.  Trench not safe and parachute not safe.  Life is hard and then you die.

 

Suggest:

 

1.  Weight of parachute to be taken into account for aircraft flight model.

2.  Parachutes should mostly work unless pilot too badly wounded to use, parachute damaged in cockpit (fire for example) or aircraft too damaged to support the use of the type of parachute in question.  Note that the parachute is just another type of airborne apparatus for use in war. 

3.  Parachuting pilots are a legitimate target.

 

Should be simple I would have thought.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Edited May 2, 2021 by ACG_Talisman

[J99_Sizzlorr]

1 minute ago, ACG_Talisman said:

Killing the enemy is what war is about and this sim simulates war.  Killing enemy pilots was/is a duty.  We need to get into the full acting part for full immersion.  Just like the poor bloody infantry; think you are safe in your trench, well think again because we shoot you there too just like you are in the open attacking us.  Trench not safe and parachute not safe.  Life is hard and then you die.

 

Suggest:

 

1.  Weight of parachute to be taken into account for aircraft flight model.

2.  Parachutes should mostly work unless pilot too badly wounded to use, parachute damaged in cockpit (fire for example) or aircraft too damaged to support the use of the type of parachute in question.  Note that the parachute is just another type of airborne apparatus for use in war. 

3.  Parachuting pilots are a legitimate target.

 

Should be simple I would have thought.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

In the air the goal was to destroy enemy airplanes. Not primarily to kill their pilots. Otherwise they wouldn't have taken crashed pilots prisoners but would have shot them on the spot instead. If we shoot parachutes we might as well vulch airfields and kill the enemy while he is still on the ground. How much fun would that be? Yeah it's not that simple as always...

[No.23_Gaylion]

[Angry_Kitten]

9 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

must not be drinking distilled rain water this week

[BMA_Hellbender]

Uh oh.

 

 

Okay, let's clearly make a difference between two things here:

1. bailing out
    
2. parachute deployment

Everyone can bail out over their own lines, including Entente planes. If you finish mission in time before you hit the ground you will have successfully bailed out. This is most certainly an engine limitation. Parachute deployment could be limited to late war Central planes, or late war maps, or have a realistic animation length of the pilot hanging out the side of the plane in level flight or else the static line fails.

 

My opinion is for the devs not to bother with this in the least, it will chiefly be a pre-1918 consideration and FC2 won't get us there yet. Fixing the DM, adding new collector planes, adding engine variants and even reviewing some existing planes should take precedence over all this, or I fear the worst for FC3 and beyond.

 

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Perhaps we don't shoot parachuters because prisoners can provide intelligence,  not because it's a moral thing to do?

 

Kill em on the ground, strafe airfields and such?  Pretty common occurrence I believe.   

 

War is ugly.  Its not a gentleman's day at the races. It's war. Kill or be killed. Kill them before they kill you. 

 

And yes, killing the pilot was the goal. Much harder to replace the pilot, than the plane as the war went on.  The Germans realized that.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Steamboat_Willie

[No.23_Triggers]

Uh-oh, here we go again....

 

I think parachutes should be properly modelled, with weight / drag penalties and all. If you're confident enough, you lose the chute and gain the performance benefit. If you're more cautious, you take the "insurance" along with its downsides. 

Failure rates can be left out IMO, unless the devs want to go for a "Hardcore" WW1 experience with all the other blemishes (jams, engine failures, bad airframes, etc). 

 

10 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

So where exactly does the chute impact multiplayer and favours one side heavily?
 

In V-Lifing, for the most part. All you need to do is check the parsers of the 20+ Central aces on the flugpark list and it becomes apparent. But that's only a factor if you care about other people's streaks (although it's hard not to be jealous of the chutes when you're building an Entente streak). 

The other place the Parachute really becomes an advantage is in the Events, depending on how the rules are written. Op. Michael was a particularly good example with the lack of a re-fly time penalty if you're downed in allied lines and a reduced re-fly penalty if you're captured.

If you're just in it for the throwaway dogfights though, then who cares about chutes? 

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by US93_Larner

[Cynic_Al]

11 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

In a game that is quite particular in apportioning weight, whether fuel bombs, ammunition, guns etc etc, it beggars belief that there is no weight penalty to including a chute in the aircraft load out

 

I can't believe something this trivial is being discussed, but if you want to go down that road how about weight penalties for skins?  Painting a plane can add a surprising amount of weight, so why not?  I'm sure the "I only play to show-off my skin" brigade would just love that.

[J2_Jakob]

28 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

The other place the Parachute really becomes an advantage is in the Events, depending on how the rules are written. Op. Michael was a particularly good example with the lack of a re-fly time penalty if you're downed in allied lines and a reduced re-fly penalty if you're captured.

 

Due to 60 second timer on finishing flight, every single parachute I saw in OM got strafed. With no parachutes in RoF, crashed pilots were commonly strafed during these 60 seconds in previous tournaments.

[Jason_Williams]

Nothing we do is lazy. We always work to our maximum capacity with the personnel we have. Be more fair in your criticism or don't post here. 

 

Jason