Engine management and power settings

[SupremeLoser]

A lot of good ideas.  I think having the effects of overheating, overcooling along with simply running too much boost for the engine to handle (such as with the P-40), already models most of the engine problems you would have in combat without the need for timers.  The mechanical wear as a function of engine load, rpm and other factors (and how it goes up dramatically when you exceed the max continuous setting) would only really matter if the simulation were to handle the logistics (as someone here put it) of engine repair, maintenance, etc.  I would actually like that in career mode, which would be neat if that could also be implemented on multiplayer servers.  Also in that vein, I think that you really should have just one "life".  If you get KIA, it is game over.  At least for the career of that pilot or even in a multiplayer event.  I also think the scoring should be a big fat 0 in that case.  It would really bring home the need to stay alive, just like in real combat, and I think we would all fly much more realistically like we would in the real scenario.  Well, a lot of things I am throwing in there that might be separate thread, but I thought since talking about realism it would not be bad to mention it.

 

One thing with the randomness aspect of engine reliability... I think that is something that would be good to have, at least as a realism option.  Even when flying at normal power settings, there is a chance something could go wrong with the engine (ignition failure, carb issue, etc.)  This would be something that would be very, very improbable of happening when under continuous power setting, but it could happen from time to time.  However, that would be another issue with going into WEP for longer periods of time.  It would depend on the particular aircraft model too.  Some were more reliable than others.  Under WEP, it certainly would not be 100% after a certain amount of time like the current implementation, but it could be say something like a 1% probability every minute while in combat power and 5% every minute while in WEP... just as examples.  It would differ from the timer method in that it doesn't ever go to 100% after x amount of time and in fact, it never gets any worse with time.  It is just a probability thing, the longer you risk 5% chance of failure, the more likely it is to happen.

[BlitzPig_EL]

If you are not abusing the engine, and it fails randomly, the very first thing you will lose is the player base.

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

1 hour ago, BillsPlane said:

I think that you really should have just one "life".  If you get KIA, it is game over.  At least for the career of that pilot or even in a multiplayer event.  I also think the scoring should be a big fat 0 in that case.  It would really bring home the need to stay alive, just like in real combat, and I think we would all fly much more realistically like we would in the real scenario.  Well, a lot of things I am throwing in there that might be separate thread, but I thought since talking about realism it would not be bad to mention it.

It's normal that people die in war, many real life aces died in the war. In real life they didn't erase someone's accomplishments from the pages of history if they died in battle, the pilots accomplishments just stopped piling up after that obviously. I think it would make more sense in a one-life event to just have the punishment for death be that your high score stays static while you're dead, and the living keep playing and racking up higher scores.

[SupremeLoser]

18 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

If you are not abusing the engine, and it fails randomly, the very first thing you will lose is the player base.

I agree with that if it occurs too often.  I am talking about a very low probability, but not zero.  Also, it may not result in complete failure, just a drop in engine performance (hear a miss or something of that nature).  Especially when flying at continuous power settings.  My thoughts there is perhaps that could be set so there is NO chance of any failure at that power setting, on the other hand, that isn't quite realistic.  There would be some chance of an issue occurring over an entire mission while at that power setting, though it would be very low.  How low do I mean?  Probably something in the range of .1 to 1% for the entire 2-3 hours.  At least for the more reliable aircraft.  Also, if the engine is already damaged, the probability of a failure of some sort would increase over the standard amount.  When pushing an engine, i.e., combat power and especially WEP, though you are technically not abusing the engine if you are managing the engine temps and not having knock, it still would considerably increase the chance of an engine failure (again, maybe not an all out failure to run, but a sudden change in output, running smoothness, etc.).  Also, when the pilot would hear/feel this occur, they would immediately reduce the power setting to avoid further damage.  That goes back to the part about the more an engine is damaged (in addition to how hard it is being run), the more likely of additional failures/damage to occur.

 

If modelled correctly, the likelihood would be quite low of having engine issues when flying at continuous power settings and even combat settings within the recommended time limits (say 15 minutes or so).  Those constraints in the manuals were likely on the conservative side, but they were decent guides to keep you out of trouble.  Exceeding the time limit was more than just engine temps and knock, it was about how long to run the engine "hard" and be able to get away with it (in most cases) without issue.  That is getting back to the probability per unit time modelling.  From this POV, the current timers are a shortcut to model this to a certain extent.  Though, I think they are too harsh and cut/dry.  Basically, you have 100% chance of complete engine failure to run once you exceed the manual's suggested max time at a power setting by a minute or so.  That of course, wouldn't happen.  What I am suggesting above is a more realistic approach that there is a certain probability of a certain amount of engine failure that goes up with how hard the engine is being run.  At low power settings up through continuous, it is close to zero, but not quite zero.  However, that is a concession I would not mind giving up and having it zero in this simulation.  Because, it would be frustrating for sure if it is too high of a probability.  Though... it would be interesting if it were modelled to more correctly account how some aircraft were more likely to have engine problems in flight.

 

This is especially true if you read about the Russian aircraft of WW2.  They had numerous reliability problems that was caused by production quality issues and other things... though the planes themselves were good designs.  At the opposite end of the spectrum was the P-47.  This aircraft was famous for not only its reliability but extreme ruggedness in being able to handle battle damage and still run.  There were many stories of pilots that had one or more of the "cans" shot and yet the engine would still run and get them home.  P-51 was very reliable also, though more suspectable to damage due to being water cooled.

 

This gets into a few areas of things that effect how the engine runs.  You have overall running reliability, without damage, which is what my idea of a percent probability of a certain range of engine failure to occur per unit time... which would go up the harder the engine is pushed and also if it already has damage to it, but would be affected on all of these things by the particular engine model.  And then you have how an engine can handle damage.  This would also look into subsystem damage.  For example, you have a water cooled aircraft, well, if the cooling system gets damaged, that just affects the cooling and doesn't directly damage the engine.  In case of air cooled engines, well, since you have no water cooling to get damaged, that's a plus.  Engine would need to have a direct hit to cause issues.  Well, of course you would also have to look at say, the turbo system getting damaged (look at the P-47 for example how the turbo and intercooler stretches through the body of the aircraft and in fact, was the reason for the tubby shape).

[SupremeLoser]

18 hours ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

It's normal that people die in war, many real life aces died in the war. In real life they didn't erase someone's accomplishments from the pages of history if they died in battle, the pilots accomplishments just stopped piling up after that obviously. I think it would make more sense in a one-life event to just have the punishment for death be that your high score stays static while you're dead, and the living keep playing and racking up higher scores.

That is true about posthumous accomplishments.  But, for the gaming aspect of this simulation, it seems a bit off to me, for example when you look at the stats of many of the online servers, it doesn't even list how many times a player was killed.  All that matters is the score, which is multiplied by factors if the plane is safely landed vs ditched vs captured vs killed.  Those multipliers somewhat model it, but I'm afraid it still doesn't really correctly account for a pilot that say shot down 20 planes but was killed 20 times vs one that shot down 2 planes but wasn't killed at all.  The later is actually the better pilot but would have half the score.

 

If you look at how pilots were scored in real life it was simply the number of kills.  The one concession I would make however, is that it would differ in the game in that if you are killed you aren't around to be on the roster anymore.  The posthumous accomplishments are things for the history books and memorials, but if you are in some sort of competition... well, you're out if you are dead.  That is why I think it should be 0.  It also would give more detriment for being killed in action vs say, being captured by the enemy.  In both of these cases the pilot could not score any more kills (unless they escape).  But the difference with being captured is they are still alive and not out of the competition just yet.  Ditto if a pilot ditches or bails... they are still alive and can continue on more missions, though IMHO there should be a delay of some time, perhaps 30 minutes before they can take part again.  So what is the benefit then of successfully landing your aircraft vs ditching it vs bailing and letting it crash in a fireball if you made a couple kills in all of these cases.  IMHO, the simple solution is you also have the number of crashed/destroyed planes for a pilot logged.  For scoring purposes, you could perhaps subtract the number of planes lost from the planes you shot down to get your actual score.  Also, there are other metrics that would be interesting, such as number of kills divided by the number of planes lost.  What about ground kills?  I think the scoring by plane vs ground targets would remain unchanged.

 

Some of these things I am aware are settings on the servers.  They have the number of seconds after a player is killed for example, that they can resume play.  But the scoring metrics IMHO would need a redo.  I don't think any multipliers are/should be used.  It is simply the planes/targets destroyed - planes lost.  If one is captured by the enemy, they simply stop being able to play and continue scoring.  If they bail/crash in friendly territory, they can resume but after a certain delay.  If KIA... 0.  If it weren't 0, there would be no difference between getting KIA or captured.  Though I suppose this a sticky point that could be argued :).

Edited July 4 by BillsPlane

[BlitzPig_EL]

If random failures are selectable in difficulty settings, OK I guess, but if it were applied across the board, I would NOT purchase the sim.  Simple as that.

[SupremeLoser]

5 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

If random failures are selectable in difficulty settings, OK I guess, but if it were applied across the board, I would NOT purchase the sim.  Simple as that.

I agree.  I wasn't suggesting it as something baked in that you can't select.  It would be just another checkbox under the realism.  Say, a checkbox for "engine reliability".  And perhaps another one for "realistic engine damage" (to model how an engine reacts to battle damage, subsystems, etc).

Edited July 4 by BillsPlane

[Aapje]

I think that these kind of ideas would kill the game. This is a combat simulator, not a game to deal with random engine problems, and making people wait half an hour when they have just an hour or two to play, would be ridiculous.

[SupremeLoser]

45 minutes ago, Aapje said:

I think that these kind of ideas would kill the game. This is a combat simulator, not a game to deal with random engine problems, and making people wait half an hour when they have just an hour or two to play, would be ridiculous.

I think having these as realism options would solve that problem.  And regarding waiting a certain amount of time when captured or after crash landing, that is also just server settings.  So, some servers would offer a more realistic combat experience while others would be more from the gaming angle.  And yet, others in between.  I am not suggesting that these would be hard and fast rules.

 

Personally, I'd go for 100% realistic combat experience.  FWIW, I even turn off any of the notifications about engine, aircraft help, etc., even though they are allowed even when I check off all the boxes for the maximum realism currently allowed.  Why?  It forces me to fly closer to how the real pilots did.  They didn't have any on screen messages popping up telling them the percent throttle or that they are now in combat engine mode.  All they had to go off was the gauges along with the sounds and vibrations from the engine.  I find the simulation more enjoyable this way as you then concentrate on learning things to notice just like what the real pilots had to do.  Likewise, I think in combat, well, you got one life.  You would do everything in your power to preserve it.  Playing that simulation on those terms I think would REALLY change many peoples strategy.  It actually would invoke a little fear into the game, again just like real life.  You would do things to save your life and have to make balanced choices whether to protect a wingman or not.  And most would not haphazardly go straight into combat.  The head on firing situations would become very, very rare.  Also, knowing that your engine is not 100% reliable, just like real life, would add more richness to the depth of the simulation IMHO.  There would be a bit more finesse in handling the engine and noticing the slightest changes in how it sounds, feels or responds and then asking "what's the issue" if something changes.  I have experienced this back when I used to do club racing with cars.  Things rarely go as planned.  As that is actually part of the fun/challenge.  Taking all of these things into account (player has 1 life, reliability between aircraft models varies and is a real issue, different engines/planes can handle battle damage differently, etc., would make for some very interesting changes in strategy and how players coordinate in missions.  Dare I say, they might find they start doing things a lot like the real guys did in WW2.  It would surely be an adaptation.  But would it be bad?  I see players going out in groups and being a LOT more cautious.  Pick your fights carefully.  Stick to the mission.  Rarely chase the enemy home... when they have had enough and decide to peel off, unless you have very little risk, let them go.  That is what the real pilots did based on accounts I have read.

 

But the thing is, since these could all just be settings on realism and also the servers, I don't think it would cause people to stop buying or playing this simulator/game.  There would be choices.  You don't like the 100% realistic server?  Pick the one that is more game oriented if you like.  There are plenty to choose from.

Edited July 4 by BillsPlane

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

3 hours ago, BillsPlane said:

That is true about posthumous accomplishments.  But, for the gaming aspect of this simulation, it seems a bit off to me, for example when you look at the stats of many of the online servers, it doesn't even list how many times a player was killed.  All that matters is the score, which is multiplied by factors if the plane is safely landed vs ditched vs captured vs killed.  Those multipliers somewhat model it, but I'm afraid it still doesn't really correctly account for a pilot that say shot down 20 planes but was killed 20 times vs one that shot down 2 planes but wasn't killed at all.  The later is actually the better pilot but would have half the score.

 

Last time I played (which was over a year ago), the servers all showed K/D so I don't know what they're doing now if the deaths aren't shown, but I don't respect the raw kill count. I like the idea of moving away from the raw kill count, but I can't comment on the specifics of how it's going, because I don't know what they're doing.

 

3 hours ago, BillsPlane said:

If you look at how pilots were scored in real life it was simply the number of kills.  The one concession I would make however, is that it would differ in the game in that if you are killed you aren't around to be on the roster anymore.  The posthumous accomplishments are things for the history books and memorials, but if you are in some sort of competition... well, you're out if you are dead.  That is why I think it should be 0.  It also would give more detriment for being killed in action vs say, being captured by the enemy.  In both of these cases the pilot could not score any more kills (unless they escape).  But the difference with being captured is they are still alive and not out of the competition just yet.  Ditto if a pilot ditches or bails... they are still alive and can continue on more missions, though IMHO there should be a delay of some time, perhaps 30 minutes before they can take part again.  So what is the benefit then of successfully landing your aircraft vs ditching it vs bailing and letting it crash in a fireball if you made a couple kills in all of these cases.  IMHO, the simple solution is you also have the number of crashed/destroyed planes for a pilot logged.  For scoring purposes, you could perhaps subtract the number of planes lost from the planes you shot down to get your actual score.  Also, there are other metrics that would be interesting, such as number of kills divided by the number of planes lost.  What about ground kills?  I think the scoring by plane vs ground targets would remain unchanged.

 

Some of these things I am aware are settings on the servers.  They have the number of seconds after a player is killed for example, that they can resume play.  But the scoring metrics IMHO would need a redo.  I don't think any multipliers are/should be used.  It is simply the planes/targets destroyed - planes lost.  If one is captured by the enemy, they simply stop being able to play and continue scoring.  If they bail/crash in friendly territory, they can resume but after a certain delay.  If KIA... 0.  If it weren't 0, there would be no difference between getting KIA or captured.  Though I suppose this a sticky point that could be argued :).

 

My original post was about a one life event, so more of a short term affair, probably better to just consider captured = out of the action, and save escape situations for longer term stuff. For a short term setting, it might be a good idea to just give people 1 (maybe a limited number of extras) plane per person, so they have to land it, and can't just bail out of planes as casually as they'd change clothes. The idea with the scoring is how much can you accomplish with one life, and the fact that you're balancing survival with getting 💩 done. So someone could play ultra reckless score 500 quick points and die, but then be beaten out by someone playing at a more balanced pace and scoring 1000 over the duration of the whole event, but also someone who plays unrealistically ultra safe and accomplishes little could get 100 as he didn't do much. You gotta risk it for the biscuit, but not too much, the Goldilocks amount.

[SupremeLoser]

I think perhaps I should have split up the things by Great Battle vs Korea.  For GB, either removing the timers altogether or if timers are kept the probability of engine failure shouldn't be a strict 100% after they expire.  Should be considerably lower, both the probability of the engine having a problem at all and also the degree of the problem.  I am thinking this latter solution might be more agreeable with the developers/owners because it would still take into account how pushing the engine harder affects its reliability and you can have consequences.  It is just that the current timer limit setup is way too strict.  But perhaps going the other way and having no timer at all would be too lenient as to how the engine would react?  There perhaps would need to be a middle ground.  The other solution is the more detailed engine modeling that they are talking about for Korea, but I doubt they would put that also into GB nor would I expect that.  Also for GB I would like to see the servers have the option of changing the scoring metrics.  The only other thing I think they need is the timeout when captured. I don't see that. The rest of the settings are there to tailor them pretty well if desired.  I might just need to start a new server of my own one of these days.

 

For Korea, that is where I am hoping they would also add something along the lines of engine reliability and other more detailed engine modeling.  It should be selectable in the Realism Settings however so different servers/players can tailor it to what works for them.  From the video, it sounds to me like they will be modeling the engines in more detail.  The temperatures, subsystems and reliability.  I'm hopeful there.  I am not expecting anything like this to be remodeled or added to GB.

[Aapje]

They are not going to change the timer system for GB. You can only expect real changes for Korea.