Random engine failures

[Bruce1833]

I personally would like to see Random Engine Failures in the game. I have no doubt in my mind that there were some instances, pilots had issues with engine failures or stalls. Even our modern prop planes today stall or fail all the time. Flying many sorties a day could give major issues for the engine. 1hr operational time = 4 hr maintenance. I think it would be interesting trying to restart an engine while trying to get away from a YAK-1.

 

YAK 50 Engine Failure -

 

Ultra Light -

 

Cessna 182 -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbqDTuAQoi4

 

More Cessna Fun -

[Gort]

Heck with engine failures, I'd rather have a cool Bremont watch!

 

Loved the caption on the Yak - "Engine Seized, Propellor Windmilling..."

[HansHansen]

Very unlikely to happen. If you want your engine to randomly fail close the radiators and go full throttle in a steep climb.

 

Dogfights are very important in this simulator, skill is supposed to decide who wins, not random engine failures. If that happens in a campaign and your mission fails (probably after 4 victories) you have to reload the mission. Very annoying and time consuming. People already complain about unlocking stuff, this definately won't speed up the process.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It has already been addressed approximately a year ago by the devs and they are not going to model random failures. Each aircraft will have a bit of randomization regarding performance by a couple of percentage points from the mean to account for workmanship etc but no random failures of the engine.

[Bruce1833]

Well, this game needs to be classified as arcade than simulator.

 

Very unlikely to happen. If you want your engine to randomly fail close the radiators and go full throttle in a steep climb.

 

Dogfights are very important in this simulator, skill is supposed to decide who wins, not random engine failures. If that happens in a campaign and your mission fails (probably after 4 victories) you have to reload the mission. Very annoying and time consuming. People already complain about unlocking stuff, this definately won't speed up the process.

It's not a simulator. It is Arcade if you don't want anything to simulate. Might as well play warthunder if you want to put throttle to full and pull the trigger.

[HansHansen]

not "that thread" again...

[von_Tom]

Well, this game needs to be classified as arcade than simulator.

 

It's not a simulator. It is Arcade if you don't want anything to simulate. Might as well play warthunder if you want to put throttle to full and pull the trigger.

 

 

I love comments like this.  Let's also model in every single possible system failure - hydraulics, radio, guns, engine, non-sliding/closing canopy, dysentery/diarrhoea and so on.  System failures happened very rarely (I'll quite happily consider evidence to the contrary) so just assume you're the lucky one whose plane is serviced and cared for properly.

 

Hood

 

ps  If we're lucky someone will say we should simulate a 20mm hit to the torso or something like that.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3WqEUUJNTY

Just NEIN pls, random engine failures weren't as common as poeple think. If you don't think so pls share some combat reports stating how many failures occured at x combat sorties.

 

Engine failures were (are) mainly caused by:

 

1. Lacking / unproper maintanance of important engine components and tribological parts before and after flight.

2. Pilot mistakes overstressing the engine or exeeding the safety limits damaging the engine (on long terms).

 

If you exclude both engine failures are becoming more than very unlikely, especially in a winter scenario where engines overall performed better due to better climatic conditions.

 

I have enough engine failures getting shot so I can gladly refrain form a random engine failure system

Edited July 18, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuk4

[=RkSq=Hulkbeard]

On my end random engines failures are implemented by way of my Nvidia drivers crashing. . .

[Habu]

O....K

 

 

Anyway, does anyone know if the mission designer can trigger an engine failure (in ROF)?

In RoF, you can decide a lake of damage but not a part of the plane. You can set damage from 1 to 100% which means that plane is dead.

[Sparrer]

S!

 

 

 

I proposed such idea on the suggentions topic

 

 

 

Type of Improvement: Damage Model

 

Explanation of proposals: Random Failures

Set random failure linked to a probality setup(0% to 100%) choosed by the player or mission. It could be in a online or offline flight. It could be increased with the evolution of a campaing simulating the aircraft stress. Like Early war : 1%. Late war: 3%

Ex: Failure Probability : 2%.   There are a 2% chance of a  pre modeled failure/malfunction occours during any time(also random) of the flight.

It could be any pre-modeled failure or malfunction: Engine, Oil Pressure, Hydraulics controls, comunications, Gear, Flaps, Radiator, guns, bombs, gunsigth, leaks, fuel pumps, prop pitch, etc

And they also might  be followed or not by a visual/sound effects. : Ex: Engine Failure: bursts sounds ; Gunsight Failure: Gunsigth blinks

Benefits: In an aircraft there are several gauges. But the virtual player NEVER check them because he knows the aircraft will be every time ok. 

 

If random failures/malfunctions were modeled and the player knows it....the DOUBT of aircraft health could make him check the oil pressure sometimes as example, like a real one.

 

In adition, the failures may be logged in the debrief to prevent any bug or war damage confusion

I think this is a easy implement with a great consequences in gameplay and il2 series

 

 

Its just a matter of adjust this %. Could be a user option, could be a campaing option or a server option.

 

Like other sim does.

 

With an visual effect triggered for almost every failure, like the oil leak does, would be awesome. They could be a big or a small failure (randomic and linked to % prob) that just affect aircraft performance.

 

 

 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Still don't like this idea, tbh and don't think it will go threw.

 

You can not implement  a mechanic telling the game every aircraft should have a 2% chance of engine failures (has anyone gathered actual documents how often this happened in reality??) when aircraft maintnance, construction and last but not least maintanace differed that much from type to type in german and russian airforce.

 

It would be the contary to me, rather unrealitstic, and negate the fact certain aircraft types were more "reliable" than others.

If you aimed on implementing a realistic mechanic simulating actual historical engine failure probabilities you need data from each aircraft and consider maintanance/pilot training ect. to reflect "realistic" probabilities in combat.

Like other sim does.

Such as? As far as I know this has been brought up in every flight sim so far and was eventually closed by the fact it just can't or shouldn't be simulated realisticly.

Edited July 19, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuk4

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

this

[Sparrer]

S!

 

 

Still don't like this idea, tbh and don't think it will go threw.

 

You can not implement  a mechanic telling the game every aircraft should have a 2% chance of engine failures (has anyone gathered actual documents how often this happened in reality??) when aircraft maintnance, construction and last but not least maintanace differed that much from type to type in german and russian airforce.

 

It would be the contary to me, rather unrealitstic, and negate the fact certain aircraft types were more "reliable" than others.

If you aimed on implementing a realistic mechanic simulating actual historical engine failure probabilities you need data from each aircraft and consider maintanance/pilot training ect. to reflect "realistic" probabilities in combat.

Such as? As far as I know this has been brought up in every flight sim so far and was eventually closed by the fact it just can't or shouldn't be simulated realisticly.

 

S!

Maybe you didn't got my point, i was thinking in a binomial distribution of a failure (which one ? any one) not a individual for every plane part...it madness and unecessary and as you say, unrealistic

What i intended to say is more like a dice throwing:

In the beginning of the mission, the algorithm throws the dice. If it got number six, a failure will occur, if not, it doesnt....nothing happens till the end of the mission (in this example we have 1/6 : 16,6% of chance....and this could be 0% to 100%, user/server/campaing choice...i suggested 3%.....but it will freak the pilot out

If, the dice got the six, so a failure will occur...which one ? a random one: engine, hydraulics, controls, magnetto, etc (an they may have the same probability of occurence.....maybe a little more for the engine due the amount of failure opportunities.....)

An when it will occur ? another random time during flight

I don't remember which sim have those failures...i think is lock on or FS

[LBR=H-Ostermann]

Random engine failures might be interpreted as a bug, how would you know? Like in COD, you get random engine and prop pitch failures, but how can it be determined to be a feature of the game or a bug never worked out of it. Esp. with COD's reputation.

[Sparrer]

S!

 

 

 

In adition, the failures may be logged in the debrief to prevent any bug or war damage confusion

[Sokol1]

Change "Random engine failures" for "Random engine failures in Singleplayer" and the idea became acceptable.

 

Sokol1

[VR-DriftaholiC]

 

YAK 50 Engine Failure -

 

 

That yak seems oddly intact after that landing.. we still sure BOS damage modeling is proper?

[FlatSpinMan]

Well, this game needs to be classified as arcade than simulator.

 

It's not a simulator. It is Arcade if you don't want anything to simulate. Might as well play warthunder if you want to put throttle to full and pull the trigger.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I just disagree with this attitude so, so, so much. To me, and note, this is just my opinion, it smacks of the elitist, kill-joy approach to combat flight sims that a few people really love (and that's totally fine for them), but that turns off casual players in their droves and bores semi-serious players by the dozen. It takes the game out of it, and, for all the accuracy, this is still a game, a form of entertainment. In my opinion.

 

Secondly, this is a combat flight simulator, so the emphasis should be on simulating flying in combat, not replicating historical rates of engine failure, and whatnot. 

 

Now, like extreme_one, I think the ability to control damage to an aircraft as an option in the FMB could make for some interesting missions in campaigns, so it's not that I'm totally against the idea, I just really do not like the way it was expressed and the idea that it should be a universal setting.

[LBR=H-Ostermann]

It occurred to me that if they were to simulate engine failures on the Eastern front some of the German planes wouldn't leave the ground on the winter map. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will follow with the realization that the oil in a 109 or Stuka is too thick to start the engine and the other side is pouncing on the airfield? Multiplayer or single player campaign. How far do we take this in the name of "reality"?

 

What's the old saw? Be careful what you ask for.

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Random Engine Failures are a bad way in my opinion! Because Random Failures don't exist. Every failure must have a causality! Just throwing a dice is simply wrong. Give us engine failures because of miss management. (for e.g. to long too high rpm which kills the engine. too long in WEP which killed engines and so on..) but just throwing a dice is plain wrong.

[LukeFF]

Random Engine Failures are a bad way in my opinion! Because Random Failures don't exist. Every failure must have a causality! Just throwing a dice is simply wrong. Give us engine failures because of miss management. (for e.g. to long too high rpm which kills the engine. too long in WEP which killed engines and so on..) but just throwing a dice is plain wrong.

 

Agreed. In the Combat Mission series of games, some people have asked for random engine failures for tanks & other armored vehicles. The developers, however, have countered that request with, "If the vehicle is on the map, then its engine is in proper working order." 

[Finkeren]

Having random engine failures is the complete opposite of simulating. Simple as that.

[Silverback]

I got to go with HELL NO! we have enough problems.

[Motherbrain]

Engine failures aren't random. Something causes them. THAT needs to be simulated and most of it already is.

 

Combat damage, pilot abuse etc.

[Sternjaeger]

Once again, I am surprised at some of the statements here: engine failures were a relatively common occurrence on battle weary machines.. heck, it happens nowadays in peace time, let alone in those situations of intense engine work.. 

 

Honestly guys, I am starting to wonder whether some of you are looking at the right product for their entertainment. 

 

I mean, if dogfighting is all that you care for, do seriously consider War Thunder. This is not meant as a provocation, but as a heartfelt suggestion. 

[Habu]

Stop with the dogfighting mod please, it's too easy.

 

When you play a coop (multiplayer game) which is for many people the day for flight sim in a week, because you have a familly, it's annoying if your flight finished by a random failure at any time. Imagine you wait that day to fly with your friends, and after 5 minutes in flight, your engine die. It's a coop, so no respawn and flight is over for you. If you breake your motor by your own, ok, but not on a random failure.

[Sternjaeger]

erm... do you seriously expect the options of a simulator to be decided upon how many days a week you can play? Besides this kind of stuff is normally a scalable option, so I don't really understand where the problem is!

[4Shades]

Sternjaeger is correct, all these things (realism settings like engine failures, gun jams, nav lights/flares etc etc) can be optional so why the disagreements? It is like people get threatened by new ideas. That's not good for a community of an in-development sim.

[Habu]

erm... do you seriously expect the options of a simulator to be decided upon how many days a week you can play? Besides this kind of stuff is normally a scalable option, so I don't really understand where the problem is!

For that kind of option, yes. If it's a scalable option, it's not a problem, but it's the first time that someone talk about scalable option.

[Sparrer]

S!

 

 

 

...and this could be 0% to 100%, user/server/campaing choice...i suggested 3%..

 

 

[Habu]

Sorry, i miss the 0%.

[Sparrer]

S!

 

just trying to make a contructive discussion

I do agree that failures aren't random and they have a cause. But the causes are predictable ?

Do you guys expect that every single one of the thousands of an aircraft pieces can have your health checked ? And even if they are, they can't failure during flight ? No, they are uncertain. It's just a matter of how much uncertain it is. So model this uncertainty is not the opposite of simulate. In fact, that's how the actual maintenance programs are made: They are built to reduce this uncertain to the lowest acceptable rate, but they still there.
Setting up a probability distribution to a failure/malfunction is exactly a simulation instance. We don't need to reproduce the oil thickness, the bolts torque or pistons wear....because it will end at exactly the same point: When it will collapse still uncertain, and still a probability distribution. And model them is a madness itself.

The real question, that may bring the sky fall, is how much probability of a failure/malfunction occurs. But if they are seted to 0,y% to 3%, they still very rare anyway (means a failure-not an engine kill- in 100 flights).

 Actually, no matter 0,1% or 3%, just the fact they are modeled freaks the pilots out....and this is the truly benefit.  An this is imersive.....could change a mission plans. (it reminds me now flying a 1943 CAP-4 days ago....my butthol* still unbelievable shut ).

And oah....i almost forget, just the fact that planes failures isn't rare in 2 war (oah...an extremely bad supply/flight condition/maintance environment!), and even in the moon (apollo 13 send regards) it may ocur. An oah....just the fact that model a low % of chance of failure of an equipment is more accurate than 100,00% of non-failure. This is any pilot dream. I almost forgot even my 2014 fresh new car failure already (a minor one like sugested...not an engine kill).

But i do agree with the arguments presented that: "We have many things to worry"....because now in bos, finaly, the engines have their limits modeled....and this is enough to put this idea in a very low priority (despite this ease) especialy with much more important things to do.

[Matt]

In a campaign/carreer, this could be absolutely great. As in you overstress your engine every mission, there's a good chance that something will go wrong later on. Much better than the "fly longer than x minutes with Y manifold pressure or RPM or Z temperature = engine broke". That would add a lot to a carreer mode imho and i would absolutely low to have something like that.

 

But just adding a random chance of the engine failing (as has been confirmed by the devs, we're currently always flying "new" planes) does not really make things any more realistic imho.

[Sparrer]

Actually, the fact of being a new equipment, could make it worse (like occur in my fresh new car)
Found a chart on google that shows that, the famous bath curve:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Bathtub_curve.jpg

Maybe, a proper way to call those "random failures" should be: " unexpected failure with low probability". They may occur in any equipment, is just a matter of how low this "low" is.....and should increase with time (imagine how bad became the materials and how the factories produces them in late war, and imagine how prototypes were handle) . This could be done like : early war 1% late war 3%. We don't have those numbers exactly.....but i think setting like 1% or 3% (keep it very low) would be better than 0% because 0% we sure don't exists. But as i said...its not a "must have" featuring at this point imo

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Random damage = can of worms. It would make the forums melt in an instant. Would be no end to conspiracy/bias/flaws or whatnot discussions. Better have it this way than yet another feature that could never be tweaked to be good.

[Sim]

I like the idea of having random engine failures. It could affect not just your plane, but your flight (as in your wingman getting engine failure for example). I think this feature could be approached as:

 

a) a separate difficulty option (same as cold engines start, not part of expert)

b) or a separate mission editor MCU command you could use to implement engine failures on per-mission per-plane basis

Edited July 29, 2014 by Sim

[Anw.StG2_Tyke]

Actually, the fact of being a new equipment, could make it worse (like occur in my fresh new car)

Found a chart on google that shows that, the famous bath curve:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Bathtub_curve.jpg

Maybe, a proper way to call those "random failures" should be: " unexpected failure with low probability". They may occur in any equipment, is just a matter of how low this "low" is.....and should increase with time (imagine how bad became the materials and how the factories produces them in late war, and imagine how prototypes were handle) . This could be done like : early war 1% late war 3%. We don't have those numbers exactly.....but i think setting like 1% or 3% (keep it very low) would be better than 0% because 0% we sure don't exists. But as i said...its not a "must have" featuring at this point imo

But again, every failure must have a causality.

 

I would love to have several engine failures, but only when there was a causalchaing leading to the failure. For example: My engine won't bring the full power. Reason: Sparkplugs aren't in a good condition. Causalitychain: Last Flight, I forgot to burn out the spark plugs. Chiefmechanic didn't checked them/no time between two flights. Result: Loss of power of the Engine.

 

Otherwise, those random failures won't exist at frontline units. Because every engine get checked before it leaves the factory. They are getting test runned at the factory to look, if it runs well.Exception are failures because of the engine design. (DB605 A until mid 1943).