Hydraulic undercarriage damage

[tattywelshie]

Does anyone know when you suffer a hydraulic failure through damage whether you get just one undercarriage leg that drops down? You see it quite a bit on gun camera footage but have never ever seen it happen in game. 

[Josp]

Hi tattywelshie,

 

I have just short experience with the Great Battles series so I may be wrong but I think this type of damage is not modelled in this game.

If you want to see this (and many other) type of damage, I recommend you trying Cliffs of Dover. I have seen a fallen out landing gear leg several times there - one leg or both of them, fully or just partially.

Cliffs of Dover has a very sophisticated damage model. In my opinion, the best one in all flight simulators I have tried so far. If I remember right, there are over 200 systems or elements in Cliffs of Dover planes that can be damaged. And many of them can have several degrees of damage.

 

Josef

[tattywelshie]

6 minutes ago, Josp said:

Hi tattywelshie,

 

I have just short experience with the Great Battles series so I may be wrong but I think this type of damage is not modelled in this game.

If you want to see this (and many other) type of damage, I recommend you trying Cliffs of Dover. I have seen a fallen out landing gear leg several times there - one leg or both of them, fully or just partially.

Cliffs of Dover has a very sophisticated damage model. In my opinion, the best one in all flight simulators I have tried so far. If I remember right, there are over 200 systems or elements in Cliffs of Dover planes that can be damaged. And many of them can have several degrees of damage.

 

Josef

 

Ah, i thought I'd never seen it. Such a shame really its not modelled as you see it regularly in gun camera footage. Shame they cant pinch some of the damage modelling code from Cliffs of dover!

[Sitaro]

20 hours ago, tattywelshie said:

 

Ah, i thought I'd never seen it. Such a shame really its not modelled as you see it regularly in gun camera footage. Shame they cant pinch some of the damage modelling code from Cliffs of dover!

Someone may be able to confirm this, but I believe it is due to the choice to use the game engine from the previous title. A WW1 game engine. So hydraulics, among a wide variety of other things, are not properly modeled if modeled at all. 

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Sitaro said:

Someone may be able to confirm this, but I believe it is due to the choice to use the game engine from the previous title. A WW1 game engine. So hydraulics, among a wide variety of other things, are not properly modeled if modeled at all. 

 

I can confirm this is nonsense.

[tattywelshie]

Wonder why it’s not modelled then, seems a bit odd, would definitely add a layer of realism. I imagine it’s probably a bell of a lot of work to model hydraulic damage for each plane though 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

It would be great to have a electrical , pneumatic and hydraulic systems damage but the time to release plane would grow significantly. So if they choose to model only some iconic ones like mentioned above it's worth to wait a bit longer. 

[Sitaro]

Perhaps with the fuel system rework? Or maybe after that? 

[tattywelshie]

1 hour ago, Sitaro said:

Perhaps with the fuel system rework? Or maybe after that? 

Yeah not really sure. I’d love after Normandy if they went back and really refined things like AI, the damage model, both physical and systems. I’d welcome that as much as new content, although know it’s the new content that really brings in the cash 

[Josp]

22 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

I can confirm this is nonsense.

Hi DD_Arthur,

 

what is your position that you are able to confirm that?

Why you don't bring any facts that would help us to take your claim seriously?

What is the real reason it is not modelled then? Please tell us.

 

I have the same impression like Sitaro. His hypothesis sounds logic. Great Battles series has been built on the engine that was developed for a WW1 flight simulator. There was no reason to develop something not needed for WW1 aircraft in this engine. I believe you agree WW1 aircraft had no hydraulic, pneumatic, etc. systems. Or not?

Would you spend time and money for developing features you have no usage for?

 

I'll gladly learn something new but I need more than just you saying something is nonsense. Support your claims with some facts.

 

Josef

 

[DD_Arthur]

19 hours ago, Josp said:

Hi DD_Arthur,

 

I have the same impression like Sitaro. His hypothesis sounds logic. Great Battles series has been built on the engine that was developed for a WW1 flight simulator. There was no reason to develop something not needed for WW1 aircraft in this engine. I believe you agree WW1 aircraft had no hydraulic, pneumatic, etc. systems. Or not?

Would you spend time and money for developing features you have no usage for?

 

I'll gladly learn something new but I need more than just you saying something is nonsense. Support your claims with some facts.

 

Josef

 

 

Hi Josef,

I’m not making a claim, I’m stating facts. ‘Fraid the logic that the first game made with this engine was for ww1, therefore the engine can’t do x, y or z is false.

 

Because ww1 planes didn’t have hydraulics this game does not have them either? How do you think the undercarriage is raised and lowered? How do you think the flaps are down on the P51 and raised when the engine has started.

 

There is no damage modelling of hydraulic systems? Ever had  CSU damage, where you are unable to alter engine revs? That’s a hydraulic system.

 

Did ww1 aircraft have gyro gunsights?

We have them here.

We also have a tank game too as the game engine is capable of modelling that.

Just because a certain feature - like undercarriage dropping through damage - is not modelled does not mean it cannot be modelled. The devs have simply not done it yet but the GBS series is a work in progress so who knows?

[kendo]

Some time ago in one of their periodic 'looking forwards' long-term plans briefings they mentioned more refinements to the DM. First thing will be the enhanced fuel system modelling that has been in the works for some time. And of course will be connected improvements to that on the DM side.

 

(some people are also hoping for incendiary ammo to make an appearance then, but don't think that has been confirmed officially)

 

But I do remember enhanced hydraulic and systems damage modelling being mentioned too as desireable/possible. No timescale though.

Edited May 5, 2022 by kendo

[Enceladus828]

DD_Arthur, you are correct that hydraulics are modelled in this game as how else can hydraulically operated systems like the landing gear operate.

 

Josp, you are correct that because this game engine is based on a WW1 game engine, unlike CloD which is based on a WW2 game engine, hydraulics weren't modelled so when the devs were making BoS, adding hydraulics was one of their top priorities. However, many other things like flaps, retractable landing gear, parachutes, etc, etc. also weren't in RoF/WW1 aircraft and had to be modelled as well... along with the map, vehicles and 10 aircraft; therefore, adding the feature where the landing gear drops down due to a hydraulic failure had to wait until another time.

 

Jet aircraft were never in WW1, yet one can fly the Me-262 in IL-2 GBs and hopefully in a few months the Arado 234.

[Josp]

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Hi Josef,

I’m not making a claim, I’m stating facts. ‘Fraid the logic that the first game made with this engine was for ww1, therefore the engine can’t do x, y or z is false.

 

Because ww1 planes didn’t have hydraulics this game does not have them either? How do you think the undercarriage is raised and lowered? How do you think the flaps are down on the P51 and raised when the engine has started.

 

There is no damage modelling of hydraulic systems? Ever had  CSU damage, where you are unable to alter engine revs? That’s a hydraulic system.

 

Did ww1 aircraft have gyro gunsights?

We have them here.

We also have a tank game too as the game engine is capable of modelling that.

Just because a certain feature - like undercarriage dropping through damage - is not modelled does not mean it cannot be modelled. The devs have simply not done it yet but the GBS series is a work in progress so who knows?

 

DD_Arthur,

 

I'm not saying it is not possible to add new features to the engine. It's clear the original engine must have been improved. The question is how much. I don't know what all the developers have added to it. That's what I would like to learn.

 

You said you can "confirm" something is nonsense without any facts or arguments that would support this your claim. I asked you to prove it because I was hoping you could tell us more information. When you commented it so strictly, it seemed you know more than most of us. I was hoping you could tell us something like: it was already discussed here, the developers said this, it has been implemented but it is not used in the game because of this reason, etc.

 

Unfortunately, you didn't. I can see you're also just speculating, same as we all here do. But we have something to discuss at least now.

 

My logic tells me this: if the original engine could model hydraulic failures (or let's make it simplier and let's say landing gear lock failures), or if the developers added such a feature, I suppose we could see it in the game. It would be stupid from developers not to use everything the engine can provide. That's why I consider Sitaro's hypothesis logical and likely.

 

You mentioned gyro gunsights. Thank you, you gave me another argument. I'm still relatively new in Great Battles so I may be wrong but I think the gyro sights were added relatively recently, only with late war planes. There were no gyro sights in Stalingrad, Moscow, and Kuban. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The developers added gyro sights to the engine and we have them in the game now. But we don't have landing gear lock failures. Can you see the difference here? I think if the engine could do it, we would have it.

 

Have you read kendo's post above? He says the developers mentioned in the past they could possibly add hydraulic system damage to the damage model sometimes in the future. To be exact, kendo writes the developers said it is possible to do. Again, that means this type of damage is not present yet.

 

Reading it all again, maybe it was just a misunderstanding from both sides. tattywelshie, Sitaro, and I, we all spoke about current state - that this is not present now and the reason why it is so is the fact that the original engine was developed for WW1 planes. None of us said it is not possible to add this and other new features to the current engine.

 

Anyway, we all are just speculating. Let's hope Jason or someone from the developers will notice this discussion and give us more information.

 

Josef

 

 

[tattywelshie]

To be honest what I’d like before maybe the next module is announced is for the devs to spend maybe the next few months sorting out all the little odds and ends out, things like the damage model with the hydraulics, fuel systems, drop tanks, torpedos, maybe some tweaks to the explosion effects as well. Just a sort of tidy up before they get into developing the next module. It might be this is what they do, but it would be cool to get these bits sorted. (He says with no knowledge of the amount of time it would take to do these bits)!!!

[DD_Arthur]

30 minutes ago, Josp said:

 That's why I consider Sitaro's hypothesis logical and likely.

 

Sorry but reread his ‘hypothesis’ and it’s demonstrably nonsense.

 

As to the rest of your post; you seem to be under some misapprehension that I’m here to satisfy your curiosity.

Let me disavow you of that notion right now.

 

If you want info;

There’s a lot of them. Enjoy your reading.

 

[Josp]

DD_Arthur,

 

Quote

Sorry but reread his ‘hypothesis’ and it’s demonstrably nonsense.

Demonstrably? Really?

You haven't brought any facts that would allow you to speak about nonsense.

I still can't see anything is Sitaro's theory I would dare to call nonsense. I don't know if he is right or wrong. I just think his theory sounds logic and likely.

I prefer facts when I try to claim something. It seems you don't. No problem, I can live with that.

 

 

Quote

 

As to the rest of your post; you seem to be under some misapprehension that I’m here to satisfy your curiosity.

Let me disavow you of that notion right now.

 

I will remember you don't like being asked.

Don't worry, I will not make the same fault again.

 

 

Thank you for the link. It's nothing new for me but thank you anyway.

 

Josef

 

[DD_Arthur]

29 minutes ago, Josp said:

 It seems you don't. 

 

Indeed? I can only presume the view out of your own backside has narrowed your vision.

 

 

 

[Knarley-Bob]

I have seen a plane come in missing a wheel, that's about it. Sucked being him.............

Having hydraulic damage such as described would be a welcome addition....( Hint, hint)?