Can engine reliability be modeled in IL2 Korea?

[TempestV]

As subject says. With boxes you tick off for certain systems?

[Avimimus]

Are you describing mission makers being able to assign a chance of random failure?

[Flashy]

15 hours ago, TempestV said:

As subject says. With boxes you tick off for certain systems?

This is something I have wished for since the RoF days - planes which can just break down from mechanical failure, depending on how worn out they are, or if they just historically were unreliable. Every plane in the game is always factory fresh and totally reliable.. not very realistic. 

in careers, the game should keep track of the number of hours on each plane and adjust the performance and reliability accordingly. Pilots often spoke about having to fly the old worn out aircraft when they first joined the squadron, and we dont have anything like that in game currently.

[TempestV]

On 11/2/2025 at 8:37 AM, Avimimus said:

Are you describing mission makers being able to assign a chance of random failure?

I like that a LOT... hadn't thought of that. It's in the Mission Maker. My idea was these problems would be in ADVANCED SETTINGS for the game.. But in the MISSION EDITOR is a great idea!!!

[LuftManu]

I'm in for this feature!!

Would be so cool if the mission maker is able to "make system fail" with a % chance. Be in a part of the MCU or a part of the Entity. 
Even better if we could also modify this on the spawning units for Multiplayer.

This being an option would be great as some servers would want pristine aircraft but in more historical scenarios, I can think of this being really good for inmersion: Late Germany, Japan late war or even Worn out planes in general.

Kind regards,

[ST_Catchov]

13 hours ago, Flashy said:

This is something I have wished for since the RoF days - planes which can just break down from mechanical failure, depending on how worn out they are, or if they just historically were unreliable. Every plane in the game is always factory fresh and totally reliable.. not very realistic. 

in careers, the game should keep track of the number of hours on each plane and adjust the performance and reliability accordingly. Pilots often spoke about having to fly the old worn out aircraft when they first joined the squadron, and we dont have anything like that in game currently.

 

Au contraire. One often gets a dud engine. It always happens just when the squadron leader waggles his wings before proceeding to attack EA. It's uncanny. One hates doing it, but one is forced to fire the RTB flare to protect one's squad mates. Nobody needs a lame duck in a scrap! Of course, the fitters receive a tongue lashing upon ones return and a request to Wing that they be transferred to a Harry Tate squadron or something equally insignificant. One can't abide incompetence. One just cannot get satisfactory and capable persons these days and one fails to see any advantage in enlisting the lower classes. One of course reports these unsavoury events to the adjutant before proceeding to the mess. For the record, one understands.

 

[Aapje]

To be honest, I think that this is something that seems a lot cooler than it is in reality. And it probably requires quite a bit of programming from the devs to make it work, that I think is better spent on something else.

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, LuftManu said:

I'm in for this feature!!

Would be so cool if the mission maker is able to "make system fail" with a % chance. Be in a part of the MCU or a part of the Entity. 
Even better if we could also modify this on the spawning units for Multiplayer.

This being an option would be great as some servers would want pristine aircraft but in more historical scenarios, I can think of this being really good for inmersion: Late Germany, Japan late war or even Worn out planes in general.

Kind regards,

This sounds like a great way for an MP server to empty.  Who goes into a server, spends significant time climbing to altitude and looking for enemy aircraft, only to have a random engine failure?  It’s difficult enough to get lots of people to join an MP server. Making the experience even more frustrating does not seem like a great idea.

[Flashy]

8 hours ago, LuftManu said:

I'm in for this feature!!

Would be so cool if the mission maker is able to "make system fail" with a % chance. Be in a part of the MCU or a part of the Entity. 
Even better if we could also modify this on the spawning units for Multiplayer.

This being an option would be great as some servers would want pristine aircraft but in more historical scenarios, I can think of this being really good for inmersion: Late Germany, Japan late war or even Worn out planes in general.

Kind regards,

 

Its an interesting idea to use the mission logic to do something like this - you could use a Damage MCU set to minor damage on mission start based on a random % chance. The thing is, I dont know what kind of damage that MCU does.. is it engine? structural? random? You dont really want the players plane to lose a wing as soon as the mission begins..

 

I dont know how well it would be received in MP (see BSR's comment), but for SP it could be cool IF it does engine damage... but you would also quickly learn to just restart the mission whenever you hear you engine running rough, because you would know its going to fail. I think we need something more sophisticated where engine parts can be worn or damaged over time, and this state should transition between career missions for that particular plane (unless fixed by ground crew). And the damage shouldnt automatically result in engine failure.. it could just mean that engine makes less power, or runs rough, or smokes a bit etc, so you dont necessarily know that its going to die on you.. 

[ST_Catchov]

7 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

This sounds like a great way for an MP server to empty.  Who goes into a server, spends significant time climbing to altitude and looking for enemy aircraft, only to have a random engine failure?  It’s difficult enough to get lots of people to join an MP server. Making the experience even more frustrating does not seem like a great idea.

 

Good comment. Engine management is enough. One doesn't need to venture into the realms of reality, particularly MP.

[Art-J]

I'm not sure it would be that popular amongst single player majority either. How many would be willing to spend hour+ into a long campaign mission only to suffer from engine failure and having to re-start the mission? A few immersion fanatics certainly would, but even in their case I wonder how long it would take before novelty of such feature wears off and everyone disables it in the end.

[Flashy]

38 minutes ago, Art-J said:

I'm not sure it would be that popular amongst single player majority either. How many would be willing to spend hour+ into a long campaign mission only to suffer from engine failure and having to re-start the mission? A few immersion fanatics certainly would, but even in their case I wonder how long it would take before novelty of such feature wears off and everyone disables it in the end.

Maybe.. but I dont see it as much different from any other mission where you spend an hour flying out to the target only to be shot down by AA or enemy fighters. I mean, everything else on the enemy side of the line is trying to kill you anyway, so whats a little random engine failure in that context? It could also change the way you play the game i.e you climb higher and maintain that altitude better because you know you might need to glide back home.. 

[LuftManu]

9 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

This sounds like a great way for an MP server to empty.  Who goes into a server, spends significant time climbing to altitude and looking for enemy aircraft, only to have a random engine failure?  It’s difficult enough to get lots of people to join an MP server. Making the experience even more frustrating does not seem like a great idea.

Seems like you did not read my whole comment or I did not explain myself properly

 

This being an option...

As an option. Mission editors can edit the threeshold of failure so you know if this can happen to avoid frustration.

Nobody would complain for this being an option cause the most popular servers can just have the thing to 0% 🫡

Remember! options are the correct path for these kind of things.

For example, some hard core server could have this enabled. For the sake of this experience. Give the mission editor and the player the feeling too, as an option.

Give people choices. Be it more fun or more inmersion focused.

Edit: Something like this on the spawn for MP or entity of the plane for SP/COOP. Default always 0. I hope I can explain myself better this way 😁

 

 

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, LuftManu said:

Give people choices.

 

Options are not free. The devs have limited time and doing one thing means that they can't do something else. This is like arguing that someone may not oppose specific government spending, because the government spending helps some people, even though the real choice is obviously between spending the money one way or spending it in different ways (or reducing taxes).

 

Quote

Be it more fun or more immersion focused.

 

I have my doubts that people really consider it all that fun aside from experiencing it once as a novelty. My opinion is that the devs should focus on things that are fun for many people, lots of times, not just one time.

 

Nursing a broken engine home due to combat damage is already part of the game, so how much does it really add, other than that the engine breaks before you even get into combat?

 

Also, I don't understand your screenshot. What happens if you set engine failures to 1? Does a single random person in the MP server get a failed engine? And how is that useful for a SP scenario, because you can never create a proper SP mission that way, where you can give a clear challenge?

Edited Tuesday at 12:36 PM by Aapje

[LuftManu]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

Text

It's just an idea. I would like to see it (as an option), but I can live without it

 

Also about the image, it's %. Yes, The range is 0 to 100%. What if you want to force a failure? Other sims have this feature too for some scenearios like nursing an engine back to the airfield.

But again, just an idea. As you say, if this cut the developement of something more important for more people, then of course priorities exists!

 

Kind regards,

[[CPT]Crunch]

And how is it realism when some guy already sabotaged your plane before you ever fired it up, certainly not random.  Programs aren't known for doing random very well.

 

I'd rather they model systems in more depth and detail, with more of them.  Like a water coolant system that directly affects your oil system with thermal transfers going on, and that directly affects bearings and frictional loads on moving parts.

[BraveSirRobin]

9 hours ago, LuftManu said:

Seems like you did not read my whole comment or I did not explain myself properly

 

This being an option...

As an option. Mission editors can edit the threeshold of failure so you know if this can happen to avoid frustration.

Nobody would complain for this being an option cause the most popular servers can just have the thing to 0% 🫡

Remember! options are the correct path for these kind of things.

For example, some hard core server could have this enabled. For the sake of this experience. Give the mission editor and the player the feeling too, as an option.

Give people choices. Be it more fun or more inmersion focused.

Edit: Something like this on the spawn for MP or entity of the plane for SP/COOP. Default always 0. I hope I can explain myself better this way 😁

 

 

I read the entire thing and understood it fully.  It’s an OPTION that will likely empty any server that decides to implement it.  Spending a lot of time looking for enemy aircraft only to have your engine randomly blow up is probably not as cool an experience as some seem to think.

[BraveSirRobin]

12 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

Good comment. Engine management is enough. One doesn't need to venture into the realms of reality, particularly MP.

If you want to simulate random engine damage in MP, just pretend that your internet connection is your engine.  If you get disconnected from the master sever, BAM, pretend it was your engine blowing up.  “Reality” achieved!

[ST_Catchov]

2 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

“Reality” achieved!

 

It's a good point but I don't like that kind of reality. It's kinda like rage quiting without the satisfaction. 🙂

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

It's a good point but I don't like that kind of reality. It's kinda like rage quiting without the satisfaction. 🙂

So you agree that random engine failures are not a good idea.  Glad to have you on board!

[ST_Catchov]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

So you agree that random engine failures are not a good idea.  Glad to have you on board!

 

No, I'm not a fan of the idea. It's enough imo to have engine failures through poor engine management or combat damage.

[Flashy]

6 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

No, I'm not a fan of the idea. It's enough imo to have engine failures through poor engine management or combat damage.

What about having older, more worn out planes on the squadron roster in Career mode Catchy old sport? So, not necessarily "unreliable", but just slower and with controls that are more sloppy etc than a new plane, and with patched battle damage, old-looking skin etc? 

[LuftManu]

Somethint that Cliffs of Dover had (Besides tons of things that actually didn't work out as planned, like BraveSirRobin said wiht some features) is the physical wear. Some instruments moving slower, rattling, some lamps not working flawleslly.

That's some kind of "comestic" wear that also could be done that does not frustrate player.

Again, not a priority, but something that if time allows, could make things different? Again, not sure if worth it, but at least, won't make anybody hitting their screen with a keyboard. 

[ST_Catchov]

2 hours ago, Flashy said:

What about having older, more worn out planes on the squadron roster in Career mode Catchy old sport? So, not necessarily "unreliable", but just slower and with controls that are more sloppy etc than a new plane, and with patched battle damage, old-looking skin etc? 

 

No not really Flashy. In my purist days, yes, because that was the reality along with engine failures. I've read all the books. 🙂 But I've mellowed and it's a game after all. I've even stopped whining about the Se5a FM. 😄 

 

 

[Flashy]

10 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

No not really Flashy. In my purist days, yes, because that was the reality along with engine failures. I've read all the books. 🙂 But I've mellowed and it's a game after all. I've even stopped whining about the Se5a FM. 😄 

 

 

haha fair enough.. I am not quite there yet then.. I still have some hope that things we want in the sim might eventually see the light of day.. not in this iteration of the sim.. but maybe one day when they create Flying Korea Battle of the Pacific Sturmovik Circus in 10 years time...

Edited yesterday at 10:59 AM by Flashy

[Duckman]

I've wanted his forever!

 

I realise it's not the easiest feature to implement, perhaps not so much technically as how to explain it to the average player, but in terms of realism it's a huge missing piece. Late war Axis aircraft, for example, were often great on paper but plagued by the atrocious production and maintenance situation. I'm not as familiar with the WWI details, but I imagine the Luftstreitskräfte were also running out of everything by 1918 or so.

[BraveSirRobin]

5 hours ago, LuftManu said:

Somethint that Cliffs of Dover had (Besides tons of things that actually didn't work out as planned, like BraveSirRobin said wiht some features) is the physical wear. Some instruments moving slower, rattling, some lamps not working flawleslly.

That's some kind of "comestic" wear that also could be done that does not frustrate player.

Again, not a priority, but something that if time allows, could make things different? Again, not sure if worth it, but at least, won't make anybody hitting their screen with a keyboard. 

 

They already had this in RoF.  There were subtle differences in engine power.  So I assume the same is true of GB. The problem is that some people spend more time complaining about things that don't work properly than interacting with their families, so it may not be a feature in GB.

[Art-J]

There's also a recent example on the other side, with DCS F-4E getting optional persistent state save feature of the aircraft between missions. The first module in DCS to do so. Engines and systems deterioration and stuff. It was introduced in the latest big update, I suspect as crossover from devs' work for MSFS. Interesting thing, but time will tell how popular the feature gets amongst mostly combat-oriented DCS players.

[Flashy]

27 minutes ago, Art-J said:

There's also a recent example on the other side, with DCS F-4E getting optional persistent state save feature of the aircraft between missions. The first module in DCS to do so. Engines and systems deterioration and stuff. It was introduced in the latest big update, I suspect as crossover from devs' work for MSFS. Interesting thing, but time will tell how popular the feature gets amongst mostly combat-oriented DCS players.

I think this is absolutely the right thing to do. Every plane in career mode should be a persistent object, which starts out at 100% condition and performance, but then slowly degrades with use and damage. And its state should be saved at the end of each mission, with repair time and maintenance time taken into account in determining its availability for the next mission:  i.e.  If you damage your personal aircraft while landing at the end of a mission, it shouldnt just be magically fixed and at 100% again if you need to fly another mission that same day - you'll have to take another aircraft for that mission..

Edited 8 hours ago by Flashy