Modelling engine wear and WEP limitations

[TomcatViP]

Seems great.

Would you add fleet management at squadron level for online campaign ? I bet you'd get a large success that way

[csThor]

For the Luftwaffe this would be wrong. Here the Gruppe is the entity that does the "accounting" and one Officer is especially there to oversee the technical aspects of the aircraft (called the "Technische Offizier"). He and the Oberwerkmeister (Chief Mechanic) of a Staffel would be responsible for the technical "well-being" of the unit.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by csThor

Well ... for a campaign (or an online campaign for that matter) we'd need to use the Werknummer/Serial Number to track airframes. Meaning the unit the player flies with has a pool of airframes (according to historical values). Each pilot would be assigned one aircraft and the campaign engine would have to track not only engine parameters but also combat damage or accidents. Then we enter real-life inspection cycles and repairs so that it may happen the player gets another aircraft for a mission while his own crate is being serviced/repaired.

Initially i would just have "no-name" airframes that just suffer wear and tear through missions to make things simpler to implement and test.

However yes, what you describe would be the end goal in terms of this feature and how it would/should be implemented

As for squadron/fleet management some people like it and some don't, so i would advocate it being optional. The campaign engine would do it automatically if the player wouldn't interfere, but it should be possible for example to go into the squadron's dossiers and assign your best wingmen some healthy airframes.

This is similar to European Air War, it just expands the same idea into more features, where you were presented with a computer generated sortie roster before each mission but were still able to change who would fly if you wanted to.

In short, the PC would take care of all the "accounting" if i didn't do anything, but i would still be able to change things around if i wanted to without having to stick with a full time job of squadron logistics on every single mission.

This enables those who like it to go all out on it, those who don't to just leave it to the PC and the rest to simply change a couple of things and leave everything else to the PC.

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

That gets a bit too far into "Historical accuracy!" Most of us paid for a flight sim, not an accounting sim!

+1

This reminds me of the "Analysis - Paralysis" saying...

I am afraid that, if some people do not look at the whole thing from a more practical point of view, CoD will become a great historically correct simulation which nobody will want to play, much less buy


my 2cents

[Al Schlageter]

Geez, they can't even get the game to function properly as it now and people want more complication added.

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Geez, they can't even get the game to function properly as it now and people want more complication added.

Well are u talking of a bunch of late operated Spitfire with 100octane fuels being fully modeled according to some's fantasy dreams ?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Well are u talking of a bunch of late operated Spitfire with 100octane fuels being fully modeled according to some's fantasy dreams ?

UGH? What are you babbling on about?

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

Geez, they can't even get the game to function properly as it now and people want more complication added.

This complication you speak of is something that i would probably be working on myself if i knew my way around c# and dissecting the available dll files and commands.

It's like coding a DCG style environment straight into the sim's interface, or have it run on your personal server with a custom interface. This is doable in the sim not in the future but right now, which is very impressive to me. We just don't have enough people yet who are well versed in coding to come up with things like that.

What i'm trying to say is, this is something that could be done independently of the developers because it's a separate layer: if it was a 3rd party project it would neither delay bug-fixing on the developers' part nor get their hands fuller than they already are

[king1hw]

In the push for what everyone here considers there side of Historical accuracy (I prefer the pilots side more then the engineers side because they were there) the main problem I see is to neuter the RAF planes, to give some aid in a combat situation for a 109 pilots so that our engine in damaged after 5 minutes (Increase that to 20 and I will support you). I saw this with il2 1946. No body wanted to put on there server the 25lb spit because it was to good and now in CoD we cant use the spit MKIIa on anyones server. So I try to fly within the manuals requirements, however the fact that has been stated is that the wear was not as prevalent but was there. The manual gives the recommended 5 mins, but in many pilots logs they went over this often in giving chase in dogfights.

Here is another suggestion and this should be up to the server side. ENGINE LIMITS or NO ENGINE LIMITS.

Then it is not one belief force on the game when I have seen data from both sides in this argument and see that a strong contingent from the Axis flyers again trying IMHO to neuter the allied planes.

I have flown online now for 3 weeks and have been killed by really good 109 pilots from 46 ( who I recognize there call sign) and I have flown in and out of boost cut in those occasions. I got bested by a better pilot not whether I had proper engine management which would only force me to enter it into my pilots log then you say the plane would be overhauled well I will just jump into a new bird and go again(gotta love Refly). One thing that could help that is rearm and refuel option on landing try to keep one plane on going.

Anyway my 2 cents.

[Blackdog_kt]

Actually this proposed feature has nothing to with crippling the RAF aircraft, because
a) it would apply to all aircraft and
b) it would be user-selectable...don't like it, don't use it (or fly on another server)

What i'm trying to say is, the topic of this post is how could we possibly simulate manufacturing tolerances and airframe wear and tear in the future, not some kind of a conspiracy theory.

I could just as easily embark on a detailed explanation about how the simplified engine management of IL2:1946 tended to favor the aircraft with the bigger/more powerful engines or in some cases completely reversed the workload advantage/disadvantage to the opposite of what it was historically but i have no interest in derailing this thread just to get in an argument, i like the proposed feature and i'd like to do my part to keep the thread relevant.

I think a lot of the resistance displayed in such topics is people fearing their preferred gameplay style will be rendered obsolete and the pool of like-minded players to fly with will decrease due to many others moving on to a more refined and complex style, so they try to limit the potential of such new ideas taking root. In all honesty however, we can't expect to hold back everyone who prefers a different playstyle, otherwise we'd all be forced to fly on no-cockpit servers in order not to upset the more arcade-minded players: it's impossible to achieve plain and simple, people will fly and play the way they want to play.

Since this is supposed to be a simulation game, a large enough amount of people will gravitate towards increased complexity if it's provided and if we have the proper interface to use it. As long as such changes are not forced on everyone else and are user-selectable, i'm not just ok with it it but i eagerly anticipate it as well.

As long as people can turn off the features they don't like, there's no justification to limit these features (provided they can be reasonably implemented) and deprive another part of the community of their enjoyment.