Perfomances through time!

[Skoshi Tiger]

I wonder how performace will be altered for older planes.

Less Power?
rough running?
More chance of a breakdown?
Harder to start?
More likely to overheat?
Run out of oil quicker?
Smokey exhaust?


As an aside, I've just upgrade my PC a month or two ago and I'm already going through what I'll need to upgrade for Bob in year or so's time! I think my wife will be unimpressed!

[brando]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I wonder how performace will be altered for older planes.

Less Power?
rough running?
More chance of a breakdown?
Harder to start?
More likely to overheat?
Run out of oil quicker?
Smokey exhaust?


As an aside, I've just upgrade my PC a month or two ago and I'm already going through what I'll need to upgrade for Bob in year or so's time! I think my wife will be unimpressed!

I would expect the usage time to be more modelled on airframe stress than engine wear. From an engine standpoint the maintenance schedules were pretty rigorously maintained even at the height of the conflict, certainly in the RAF - and undoubtedly by the LW as well, I just haven't researched their procedures. It's also worth remembering that the supply of fighters was never a big issue at this period. An unserviceable aircraft was taken out of the line and replaced - it was a shortage of skilled pilots that the RAF had to deal with.
Of course, some planes were known to be 'lemons' - and, sad to record, were parcelled out to inexperienced replacement pilots, based on the callous but logical assessment that the best equipment should go to the best pilot.

[JG27CaptStubing]

After reading several posts about wants and ideas just keep in mind guys Oleg and crew only have so much processing power to aim for at the momement. The more detail the more time it takes to develop and the more we will have a FPS hit.

Only in the last few years are we seeing IL2 in it's highest settings. For the longest time it wasn't even worth running in Perfect mode.

I'm sure when BOB is released they will be aiming for the Middle System of that time and I'm sure it will look quite a bit better than what we are used to however I have a feeling we aren't going to get all the goodies with the current Tech.

That's how these sims scale over time.

So all this talk of FMs offline online AI versus human will all be a compromise. That's just what it is.

So the more threads I see about wanting AI to have the same abilities as Humans during a fight the less planes we are going to see over the Coast.

Same goes for all the other details that have been brought up.

Game Developers Focus on Core Elements of the game and Game Play IMO is paramount.

Features like weathering and less performance over time are really neat and they can add to the immersion.

I would love to see a COOP dynamic Campaign mode that supports 1000s players. I don't think it's really a goal or realistic at this time.

Rant off

[LEXX]

JG27::

So the more threads I see about wanting AI to have the same abilities as Humans during a fight the less planes we are going to see over the Coast.

That's why AI needs simplified wear modelling. If not, then there should be no multi-mission wear modelling for the player.

That should cover your correct concern about (1) developer resources and your in-correct concern for (2) simulation performance hit.

Tip:: Wear modelling should have no effect on performance during the game. Any wear calculations apart from normal in-flight damage model simulation will be conducted after successful landing (and only then). The "state" of wear is defined at the end of the mission from the normally calculated damage model, and is carried over to the next mission where it becomes part of the new damage model.

That carry over of damage model simulation from one mission to the next implies some form of campaign system will ship with the game: a Good Thing.

[_ITAF_UgoRipley]

Originally Posted by LEXX

JG27::
...The "state" of wear is defined at the end of the mission from the normally calculated damage model, and is carried over to the next mission where it becomes part of the new damage model...

So every single airplane has its own, ever increasing, DM!!
Does that imply that a pilot can choose an airplane with less damage at the start of a mission, or that a specific airplane is "assigned" to a pilot throughout the campaign, until a certain level of damage is reached ?
This could mean for an airbase not to be able to have all airplanes in a ready-to-fly state, and some pilots could remain grounded.

[LEXX]

Yes, that does sounds like air war simulation. If I were Oleg, I'd focus development resources on other things, or at least create basic simplified "wear" modelling for the air forces invovled, but what you described is correct.

[JG27CaptStubing]

Originally Posted by LEXX

JG27::
That's why AI needs simplified wear modelling. If not, then there should be no multi-mission wear modelling for the player.

That should cover your correct concern about (1) developer resources and your in-correct concern for (2) simulation performance hit.


Tip:: Wear modelling should have no effect on performance during the game. Any wear calculations apart from normal in-flight damage model simulation will be conducted after successful landing (and only then). The "state" of wear is defined at the end of the mission from the normally calculated damage model, and is carried over to the next mission where it becomes part of the new damage model...

Assuming your correct and if this Wear model has any fidelity beyond some sort of global wear for any particular mission what keeps track of it during flight? It also brings up a whole other discussion about how that can be exploited later on.

Once you bring up questions that things are considered not all being equal the other guy will tend to blame his ride rather than his poor decisions during a fight.

[LEXX]

JG27:: [quote]for any particular mission what keeps track of it during flight? [/quot]
My guess is the "in flight" part is a normal combat flight sim Damage Model you have been using for years. Long term Wear is carrying over some damage modelling after the "in flight" part stops.

JG27::

Once you bring up questions that things are considered not all being equal the other guy will tend to blame his ride rather than his poor decisions during a fight.

Weak anonymous public server communities that depend on accusations of cheating should not be allowed ANY features of air war simulation -- restrict them to Default skins for example, no skin modding allowed, and no Wear modelling simulated.

Only strong online communities that know social behavior should be allowed to use deep air war simulation features, along with offline players who pay Oleg's bills, unless Oleg takes onliners into Pay-To-Play.

[Thunderbolt56]

1. I thought it was already stated (by Oleg himself...last week) that the AI would use the SAME flight model as the human flyable aircraft will use.

2. It's already been stated that there will be a considerable number of quality settings that will be simply unrealistic to use at playable frames upon initial release.

Speculate and debate, but these things have already been addressed.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by LEXX

Weak anonymous public server communities that depend on accusations of cheating should not be allowed ANY features of air war simulation -- restrict them to Default skins for example, no skin modding allowed, and no Wear modelling simulated.

Only strong online communities that know social behavior should be allowed to use deep air war simulation features, along with offline players who pay Oleg's bills, unless Oleg takes onliners into Pay-To-Play.

Are you freaking serious? Really? How pray tell, do you propose to implement this? Perhaps we should have sim thought commisars. Yeah, that should do.