Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[Volksieg]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Yeah, maybe for the 2025 release "IL2 Pigs Might Fly" then we can have ground crew, factories and droplets of dodgy oil modelled.

When is "IL2 Pigs Might Fly" coming out though, Osprey? I DEMAND it NOW or I'm uninstalling.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Yeah, maybe for the 2025 release "IL2 Pigs Might Fly" then we can have ground crew, factories and droplets of dodgy oil modelled.

You only need to give to every flyable plane a random wearing value (hours?).

When you enter in the cockpit you are informed of the engine's limit... it's not a real problem.

[Sturm_Williger]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

In Cliffs of Dover the top speed of the Spitfire Mark I and Ia is 240 mph at sea level. (Overboost Control Cut Out yields 0.25 lbs increase in boost 6.25 ---> 6.5 and no measureable increase in engine performance in this sim). The actual speed of the Mark I and Ia Spitfires was 280 mph at 6.25 lbs and 305 mph at 12 lbs. This compares to 273 mph (sea level) of the 109's in this sim. And yes, the 109's are also undermodelled in this sim, just to a lesser degree than the Spitfire Mark I's.

Red pilots are apparently already flying clapped-out Spits, so yes, a functioning 12 lbs boost would be a realistic thing to have in this sim ...

Wouldn't getting the base speed fixed be more important than getting 12lb boost added to game ?
Otherwise you may end up getting "normal" speed only by using boost = still not realistic.

ie.
a) top speed problem is a bug.
b) lack of 12lb boost is separate modelling issue.
Getting (a) fixed is (theoretically) easier for the devs than modelling 12lb boost and should be prioritised over (b), don't you think ? Or at least the 2 issues should be kept separate.

[Frequent_Flyer]

Originally Posted by Ernst

Will you think that adding 100 octane add realism? i think not since every time a pilot must take a fresh new ac. In the real thing the pilots did not use 12 boost at will and when they used this was an overloading condition. And the engine lifetime was seriously reduced.

Since the sim has not some way to manage engine weathering since the pilots take a new ac every sortie this ll make the things just unrealistic like now. The lifetime of the ac components were considered while projecting the same. Is really a big thing use a feature that reduce the engine lifetime 5 times?

If the devs implement some kind of model that obligate the pilots to use the same ac (at least in virtual wars, like adw or il2.org.ru) and simulate the cumulating weathering of the engine and random failures of the same due excessive use of overload conditions in previous sorties then the things ll make sense.

It ll be amazing a pilot overconfident about their superplanes using excessive boost at all time in one, two or three sorties and then in the four be surpreside by some random malfunction. Adding advantage without adding the following disadvantages is far from reality. Just my 0,02 cents.

Acctualy the pilots (allies and axis) activate the boost one after another with no interval. Totally unrealistic, since there is not a DM that simulates the effects of the massive use of this overload condition. The things appears more STAR WARS than a sim.

I have to hit the WEP all time too to have some chance. I am so hardcore that i really feel bad using the boost in the unrealistic way. Frustrating...

If you are going to model the wear and tear that degraded an aircrafts performance. It also would be necessary to model the poor design and workmanship of the early VVS designs, to be fair.

Most of the early (BOM) VVs aircraft could not take off without overheating and spewed so much oil the windscreens were difficult to see out of. You would have all sides up in arms, best just to model the " showroom " perfect craft.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

You only need to give to every flyable plane a random wearing value (hours?).

When you enter in the cockpit you are informed of the engine's limit... it's not a real problem.

It's a neat concept.

I just installed A2A's "Power 3 Spitfire", (Marks I, Ia, IIa, and IIb) including their "Accusim". This is a civilian addon to FSX, so it's really apples-to-oranges to CoD in many respects. It has no functioning guns, no battle damage modelling. But as you describe, Manu, it has a TON of wear & tear engine and airframe modelling which carries over to successive flights. Hit SHIFT 7 and you go to the maintenance hangar. There you are given a detailed report on what's good (green labels), what's so-so (yellow), and what needs immediate attention (red).
The detail is impressive, IMHO.

Imagine if this could be modelled in CoD, with repercussions for hard flying in terms of squadron points/demerits.....or rewards for careful flying (but not as great a reward as for downing e/a!). Or you have to make a choice to risk flying in your beat up aircraft on the next scramble, or fly a Tiger Moth to Castle Bromich to pick up a new one. That kind of thing.

The number of additional switches in the A2A Spit cockpit is an eye-opener. But despite that it feels extremely familiar to anyone with stick time in CoD's Spits. I'm finding it's easier to break stuff, overheat stuff, and generally muck things up --- but give me a few days and I'll have it all sorted out. And with the CoD Spitfires we can SHOOT stuff -- there's no beating THAT!!!

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Sturm_Williger

Wouldn't getting the base speed fixed be more important than getting 12lb boost added to game ?
Otherwise you may end up getting "normal" speed only by using boost = still not realistic.

ie.
a) top speed problem is a bug.
b) lack of 12lb boost is separate modelling issue.
Getting (a) fixed is (theoretically) easier for the devs than modelling 12lb boost and should be prioritised over (b), don't you think ? Or at least the 2 issues should be kept separate.

Agree 100%

You worded it much, much better than I did.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

You only need to give to every flyable plane a random wearing value (hours?).

When you enter in the cockpit you are informed of the engine's limit... it's not a real problem.

That doesn't solve it at all. In fact, you can model that right now using scripting anyway. The player need not think a jot about managing his engine because if he screws it up he has a random chance anyway of getting a good one or screwed one, and if he's gets a screwed one he can just respawn anyway.
Unless the server mission can track an individual players treatment of an engine and store it for use in that mission or subsequent related missions then it won't work at all.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

It's a neat concept.
...
it has a TON of wear & tear engine and airframe modelling which carries over to successive flights. Hit SHIFT 7 and you go to the maintenance hangar. There you are given a detailed report on what's good (green labels), what's so-so (yellow), and what needs immediate attention (red).
The detail is impressive, IMHO.

Imagine if this could be modelled in CoD, with repercussions for hard flying in terms of squadron points/demerits.....or rewards for careful flying (but not as great a reward as for downing e/a!). Or you have to make a choice to risk flying in your beat up aircraft on the next scramble, or fly a Tiger Moth to Castle Bromich to pick up a new one. That kind of thing.

...

I believe that COD has this feature but it is not 'switched on' / implemented in the current build.

I recall Oleg talking about it - not sure if there was a screenshot (?) - there was another slider for mechanical wear beside the physical weathering slider. Setting it high could lead to engine or other malfunctions during the course of a mission.

Also, in the planned campaign accumulated wear and tear would be tracked.

So, I believe it is all there, but maybe not in fully functioning form as yet. Maybe will be introduced with the sequel? (or when they finally code the dynamic campaign)

edit: found the screen..!

[Osprey]

Enough is enough. Tired of waiting, here it is

http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/174

Get voting

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Osprey

That doesn't solve it at all. In fact, you can model that right now using scripting anyway. The player need not think a jot about managing his engine because if he screws it up he has a random chance anyway of getting a good one or screwed one, and if he's gets a screwed one he can just respawn anyway.
Unless the server mission can track an individual players treatment of an engine and store it for use in that mission or subsequent related missions then it won't work at all.

I initially had your same idea, BUT I realize that is too much for the current condition of the software (CloD). It could be really interesting for the next versions of the game...

Right now IMO my idea is simpler to build in this moment: it does not solve it at all... but something si better than nothing.