Daidalos Team's Room -QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS ONLY - For 4.11

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

Up till now, gun jams, damage and structural failures have been implemented only as a concequence of players mistakes. This is game-design.
However... technical reason for such issues could be implemented, so these things would happen randomly. While this would be part of realism and maybe wanted by a number of players (offline players I suspect), it could exist only as an option.
I am interested in how many players are willing to be forced to end a campaign unsuccessfully, after having done alot of missions, although they did nothing wrong - only because a random happening?
I think before this question isn't fully evaluated, these considerations cannot be go to a high priority status.

Okay, thank you for the reply!

Hmm... We'll, I was thinking about situations which are primarily the fault of players:
- The structural failures in the Il-2 3m were a result of prolonged firing of the NS-37 (typically in a dive).
- Gun jams could also happen as a result of gun overheating, high-g maneuvers or flying too low. So, how you fly matters.


On the other hand some types of guns were notoriously prone to jamming. This didn't typically lead to the lost of a plane, but it did sometimes force pilots to abort attacks. In most cases it lowered effectiveness by causing one (our of several) guns to become unavailable before it had fired off all of its rounds.

The ShKAS had "48 ways of jamming". The Mk-101 and Mk-108 were also notoriously prone to jamming (one of their downsides vs. the Mk-103). The BK-5 was rarely able to fire off all of its ammunition.

However, these guns could and did prove to be extremely effective weapons. They just weren't 100% reliable and every few missions a pilot would carry some of his ammunition home.

So, it is really just a random factor effecting overall firepower.

If you don't mind, I could put together a poll to see what people think of the idea?

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

If you don't mind, I could put together a poll to see what people think of the idea?

I already don't like it. Jeez, people were freaking about the 2sec arming feature and now you want to jam their guns?!

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by swiss

I already don't like it. Jeez, people were freaking about the 2sec arming feature and now you want to jam their guns?!

Anything that improves realism is fine by me.

For people who don't like it, there should be a button to turn it off.

[RegRag1977]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Anything that improves realism is fine by me.

For people who don't like it, there should be a button to turn it off.

+1

Same here, gun jamming, especially caused by high g and frame stress, will considerably improve gunnery realism and overall difficulty, this by making firing windows less wide under very high gs, it would be a good addition to structural G limit that tend to be a greater problem for boom-and-zooming pilots (less sensitive for turn-and-burner as far as i experienced).

[RegRag1977]

Any possibility to have a new 3D work for the Fw190A (cowling is to wide open)? I once saw a mod correcting this. Also the ETC501 rack is weird and could need refinements...


A new Mig3 model would be nice too, i saw a russian mod greatly improving it, would be nice if it could be implemented in, what do you think?

There is a missing metal frame in the P39 cockpit view, giving more visibility:




Thank you guys for reading this topic!

[kennel]

Does anyone know what variables AI planes are actually effected by FM wise?
We constantly see AI flying with perfect trim, no overheat ect but are their planes effected by the same environmental, structural & g force limitations.

The reason I ask this is I once tried to dive away from an AI LA7 in a 190D9. The LA7 followed me down, if this was online the LA7 would have torn its wings off, however it was offline so LA was in good condition even though I had the dora at 900kmh when diving away.

An idea would be to have the difficulty settings we apply to ourselves apply to the AI as well, but one would assume this would be a massive code re write.

[Bolelas]

Dont know if this was discussed before, sorry if it was: Would it be possible to the pilot of a bomber, to deliver control to other crew member? And then regain it when he wanted to, by pressing some key? Would it be very dificult to do it in the game-coding? And could we have access, in a recording, to the views of the cockpit of other players/AI, just instead of external views?

This are not requests... just questions of someone that is allready very gratefull with Team Daidalos work.

Thanks guys!

[Luno13]

Originally Posted by swiss

I already don't like it. Jeez, people were freaking about the 2sec arming feature and now you want to jam their guns?!

If you look at the first video, you will see that bomb fuses have changed. You can select low level, delay, and long delay fuses.

Also, I don't see why this can't be an option. This could fall under the general category of "reliability" to include engines, airframes, and weapons.

I for one, would vote for such features, even if it makes campaigns and missions more difficult.

[Daniël]

What about a failing interrupter gear? In Il-2 now you'll never shoot your propellor off. What about making this an option for reliability or damage?