Engine cooling question

[Blackdog_kt]

I don't entirely disagree with that, but don't entirely agree either. What i mean when i say realistic is having the game mechanics to force inconclusive sorties or even engagements.

For example, how many times have we heard of two big flights engaging and at the end of the fight there's only a few losses on each side? Or a leader-wingman pair surprising a huge enemy formation, getting a couple of kills and managing to escape? This is all because of the complexity of flying a real aircraft, you could get surprised and have no time to react properly or both sides could be cautius and the engagement ends in a draw.
Currently, in most flight sims it's a case of "flight A wipes out flight B", because it doesn't cost that much to be careless.

After 10 years we know exactly how each plane performs when damaged. That's why we see smoking aircraft keep turning in furballs, racking up a few more kills and going home at full throttle. Advanced engine modelling will inject enough parameters to make everyone uncertain (even when there's no damage to the aircraft the pilot can damage it himself), the careless pilot's chances of returning to base will be much lower than those of a pilot who plans ahead. It's already like that to an extent but it mostly includes SA and maneuvering. It could be expanded to include "take care of your ride, or ditch in the sea" as well

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

For example, how many times have we heard of two big flights engaging and at the end of the fight there's only a few losses on each side? Or a leader-wingman pair surprising a huge enemy formation, getting a couple of kills and managing to escape? This is all because of the complexity of flying a real aircraft, you could get surprised and have no time to react properly or both sides could be cautius and the engagement ends in a draw.
Currently, in most flight sims it's a case of "flight A wipes out flight B", because it doesn't cost that much to be careless.

Yeah, that is right. However, it's always going to be that way in a game, because people keep fighting when they're losing, because they're not going to really die.

I suspect that the "90% never saw the plane that shot them" statistic means that it's actually impossible to shoot down a plane that is manouvering against a particular aircraft by that aircraft unless the pilot makes a mistake.

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

Yeah, that is right. However, it's always going to be that way in a game, because people keep fighting when they're losing, because they're not going to really die.

I suspect that the "90% never saw the plane that shot them" statistic means that it's actually impossible to shoot down a plane that is manouvering against a particular aircraft by that aircraft unless the pilot makes a mistake.

Or, because real air battles were bigger than 2 vs 2, you could not maneuver against a single bogey for long. Real pilots knew the risks - during the battle of britain day(eagle day), there was only ONE 1 vs 1 fight that lasted more than 20 sec - neither Spitfire or 109 took any hits or went down. Pilots who engaged in close-in fights were either impossibly stupid and/or foolhardy, or were very good, and knew the risks(and, at the same, were smart enough to not get shot down).

That will be the case in game too, if and only if players will keep surviving and a safe RTB their objective number 1.