PDA

View Full Version : Complex engine management


JG4_Helofly
02-01-2011, 02:10 AM
In various threads, complex engine management has been mentionned. I want to discuss this topic in this thread in more detail.

From what we know, the engine will be more complex in COD. The question is: how complex. And how will it affect gameplay.
I recently tried the A2A spitfire and I am impressed. After so many years with IL2, engine management wasn't a big issue. Only now I see how important it is.
I remember reading pilot storys in which they described that the airplane needed constant attention from take-off to the landing. They had to fully concentrate to fly these warbirds, let alone the fighting. I now understand why...

COD will probably not reach the level of detail of A2A simulations (we already know that there wont be a realistic start up procedure), but what can we expect? And how will it change the gameplay?

And of course: What do you think about it? Do we need a high level of complexity in this area?

Feathered_IV
02-01-2011, 02:19 AM
I was never one to care for the full start up proceedure, but I've always found the Il-2 series method of "press 'I' to win" in-flight management to be very unrewarding. The current management system in Rise of Flight is very good from a tactical point of view. You can sucker an opponent into over revving or cooling their engine to the point where it seizes on them. I'd like to see something like that in CoD.

Chivas
02-01-2011, 02:22 AM
I would much prefer a simple start up procedure that included switching fuel cocks, magnetos, fuel pump, and start button, but it appears the developers aren't interested. Hopefully a third party will be able to add some of these features.

4H_V-man
02-01-2011, 03:18 AM
I understand that some aren't interested in engine management, but like Feathered said, in RoF engine management can win or lose a fight. I've over-revved more than one SE5 in a fight and had to force-land when I started with the upper hand.

As long as it is an option for those who don't want it, I feel that the more realistic the better. I wouldn't mind a full start up procedure (these aren't modern jets after all), the necessity to manage fuel tanks through valve selection, mixture where applicable, etc.

One thing that always kind of irked me in Il-2 was the fact that as long as you kept the coolant or cylinder head temps in the green, the oil temps could peg and you still didn't get an over-heat message. The Hellcat is one example. In real life you had to manage cowl flaps for cylinder temps as well as the oil cooler air inlet. Unfortunately, only the cowl flaps were modeled.

Royraiden
02-01-2011, 04:31 AM
As realistic as it could be.That would add a lot to the immersion.

ElAurens
02-01-2011, 05:04 AM
As far as in flight goes I'm fine with complex procedures. Fully realistic start and run ups though simply eat up too much valuable time, at least online and for myself and my friend's tastes. We are all adults, have jobs and real world responsibilities, and our time is precious. So we would rather get to the reason we have the sim, to "fly" and fight.

15 to 20 minutes start and warm-up/runups just are not going to fly for most folks that I know.

I realize that the off line crowd will want the whole thing, and that is fine, but the "realistic start up" must be an option, not forced on the entire community.

Royraiden
02-01-2011, 05:08 AM
To be fair if it got implemented , it should be as an option.Totally agree with the guy above.

JG4_Helofly
02-01-2011, 05:32 AM
Of course it would have to be an option. Everyone has different ideas of how a combat flight sim should be programmed. It goes from hardcore simulation fans, to fast action arcade flyers.

About lenghty start up procedures: Warbirds aren't modern jetfighters. There aren't 1000 subsytems to worry about. I looked at the procedures for the spit I. If the engine is already warm (ready for scramble) you only have to use about 6 switches and some prime strokes. So, ready to go in under 60 sec.

Chivas
02-01-2011, 09:10 AM
Of course it would have to be an option. Everyone has different ideas of how a combat flight sim should be programmed. It goes from hardcore simulation fans, to fast action arcade flyers.

About lenghty start up procedures: Warbirds aren't modern jetfighters. There aren't 1000 subsytems to worry about. I looked at the procedures for the spit I. If the engine is already warm (ready for scramble) you only have to use about 6 switches and some prime strokes. So, ready to go in under 60 sec.

I agree totally. One thing I liked about BOB WOV is the quick and easy start up procedure clicking on the dual fuel pumps, and magnetos, priming the fuel pump seven times before hitting the start button. After attacking some bombers on one mission, I landed at Manston to quickly rearm to get back up at them. I taxied to the hanger area shut down the fuel cocks, and magnetos, rearmed, and just as I was about to start the engine, Manston was attacked by some Ju87's and 109's. I quickly flicked on the fuel cocks, and magnetos, primed the pump, but in my panic to get airborne I never primed the fuel pump enough and the engine wouldn't start. There was nothing worse than watching the prop and engine turn over, but not firing up. It was very immersive and an option that more than a few of us might enjoy.

Sutts
02-01-2011, 09:50 AM
I'd like to see it as true to life as possible with switches for those who don't.

It would be great to be able to see realistic power/temp/consumption behaviour when operating with rich and lean mixtures.

I've also never been able to over-rev the prop in Il2 which was a dangerous situation in the real aircraft.

Also seeing engine problems develop from over and under boost and operating over and under the recommended temps/pressures would be a great step forward.

If the devs can make it operate as closely as possible to the numbers in the flight manual then I'll be a very happy guy.

Sutts
02-01-2011, 09:53 AM
I agree totally. One thing I liked about BOB WOV is the quick and easy start up procedure clicking on the dual fuel pumps, and magnetos, priming the fuel pump seven times before hitting the start button. After attacking some bombers on one mission, I landed at Manston to quickly rearm to get back up at them. I taxied to the hanger area shut down the fuel cocks, and magnetos, rearmed, and just as I was about to start the engine, Manston was attacked by some Ju87's and 109's. I quickly flicked on the fuel cocks, and magnetos, primed the pump, but in my panic to get airborne I never primed the fuel pump enough and the engine wouldn't start. There was nothing worse than watching the prop and engine turn over, but not firing up. It was very immersive and an option that more than a few of us might enjoy.

That's exactly the kind of experience I'd enjoy Chivas. Anything that brings you closer to the problems the pilots at the time experienced.

Therion_Prime
02-01-2011, 10:11 AM
What? No (optional) complex / semi complex startup procedure in Cod?
Has this been confirmed?

I thought we'd get clickable cockpits so I'd taken a (semi) complex startup as given?

What a letdown :-(

Sutts
02-01-2011, 12:27 PM
What? No (optional) complex / semi complex startup procedure in Cod?
Has this been confirmed?

I thought we'd get clickable cockpits so I'd taken a (semi) complex startup as given?

What a letdown :-(

That's true I'm afraid, Oleg really hates procedures for some reason. He says it's for masochists only. I'm hoping A2A or another 3rd party will come to the rescue at some point.

Blackdog_kt
02-01-2011, 03:16 PM
I was never one to care for the full start up proceedure, but I've always found the Il-2 series method of "press 'I' to win" in-flight management to be very unrewarding. The current management system in Rise of Flight is very good from a tactical point of view. You can sucker an opponent into over revving or cooling their engine to the point where it seizes on them. I'd like to see something like that in CoD.

I know exactly what you mean.

I didn't care for buttons and clicking stuff until i started flying FSX on a friend's PC whenever i would visit him. After trying a few warbird add-ons and seeing what the real workload was just to keep the aircraft flying, i too started finding the IL2 method a bit unrewarding.
Mind you, i don't have RoF due to certain design decisions they made, but i've tried the demo and there's a variety of things it does manage to do in a way i like, engine management being one of them. RoF has a good compromise there.

The actual engine start is automatic, but it's not guaranteed the engine will start because it's affected by how you set-up the rest of the controls that are manual. This is in contrast to IL2, where you press I and the engine will always come to life.

From what i could glean from past statements by Oleg Maddox about CoD it seems that they will do it in a way similar to ROF, which is a big step forward from IL2 and thus it's good enough for me.

From where i'm standing, i can live with the absence of full start-up procedures as long as the rest works in a complex manner, not for the sake of complexity alone but for conveying to us the workload involved in flying a high performance aircraft in an age before computerized help systems.

It's not only more rewarding, it also gives you something to do during the transit from one waypoint to the next and it will effectively change the way we fight. More real-life complexity means more time looking inside the cockpit, which translates to more successful bounces and less protracted engagements, just like we read in the books and memoirs from the pilots of the day. After a while, people won't stick around to fight with damaged aircraft like they do now in IL2, because even if the engine doesn't quit there's a whole lot of other stuff that can go wrong, oxygen systems, hydraulics, etc, that would severely limit our ability to finish the mission or RTB.

For me, the ideal thing is the way Black Shark does it. There's the ability to do an automatic start, but it's not a magical "press key to start engine" affair: the automatic start goes through all the steps of a manual one, it's just like an invisible co-pilot is doing it. The end result of this is that experienced people can actually do it faster than the PC and this gives an incentive to use the manual mode. Also, it lets people decide on what interface to use, you can map everything to keyboard and HOTAS but you can also click on things.

Since we know that start-up sequences won't be in CoD but Oleg Maddox said everything else is there and operates in a realistic way, the next best thing would be to have a sufficient interaction between the environment and the aircraft systems. For example, in IL2 we press I and the engine starts and by the looks of it, it will be the same way in CoD. However, engines in IL2 start no matter what.

It would be fun if despite the lack of a start-up sequence, the engine was affected by outside conditions in CoD. So, i would be pressing I to start the engine, but if it was a very cold morning it would have trouble doing so. Then the engine start would fail and i would have to press I again. When the engine was finally running after 2-3 attempts, i would have to take care to maintain operating limits: don't advance the throttle before the oil is warm enough, but also make sure that you don't overheat on hotter days while sitting on the tarmac, move the prop pitch lever back and forth to cycle warm oil in the governor when flying in icing conditions and so on.

Stuff like this would tie in extremely well with the dynamic weather feature in the sim, not to mention mission triggers.
Think about this for example, depending on whether your squadron is on alert or incoming targets have been spotted by radar you would start your mission with a pre-warmed engine.

It was a common practice for the ground crew to start the engines every half an hour or so in order to maintain them at the optimum temperature, so that when the order to scramble came the pilots would be able to go full throttle almost immediately and not have to wait for it to warm up (the main reason for the warm-up is that cold oil is hard to compress, so if you advance the throttle with low oil temps you could have a lot of pressure and burst the oil pipes..also, too cold or too hot oil doesn't work as well for engine protection from wear and tear).

However, if your mission was a scramble where its supposed by the campaign engine (or it's custom made this way by the guy who made the mission in FMB) that your squad is about to stand down or you are caught by surprise, then you could be starting with a cold engine and have to carefully monitor your oil pressure while taxing for takeoff.

In any case, these are not modern jets. Even on a Boeing 737 airliner, it takes up to 10 minutes of waiting for the inertial navigation system to align, but we don't have such things in Cod:


Of course it would have to be an option. Everyone has different ideas of how a combat flight sim should be programmed. It goes from hardcore simulation fans, to fast action arcade flyers.

About lenghty start up procedures: Warbirds aren't modern jetfighters. There aren't 1000 subsytems to worry about. I looked at the procedures for the spit I. If the engine is already warm (ready for scramble) you only have to use about 6 switches and some prime strokes. So, ready to go in under 60 sec.

That's about it, you would be surprised how fast some of those 20-step procedures actually are to do in game. I've tried it in FSX with a few warbirds and generally speaking, when you learn about how an internal combustion engine operates there's not a lot of difference from one aircraft to the next. Maybe one has an electric driven inertia starter while the 109 used one that was hand-cranked by the ground crew, others used a direct drive starter, the b17 used a combination of both and some other aircraft were just as simple as spinning the prop by hand, but for piston engines the sequence is generally the same: open the fuel lines, advance mixture to full (unless you're operating from a mountain air strip), give it a few strokes of prime depending on weather conditions, slightly advance the throttle, give power to the ignition system (turn on the magnetos) and turn the prop/engine.

The differences come from peculiarities in each aircraft's subsystems, like for example two planes might have the same engine but different sequences because they have different starters, or their fuel system could be different: one might have a single tank with a single fuel cock switch, while the other might have multiple fuel tanks with a separate selectors for each. In any case, this is more about getting to know your aircraft and less about science, so it adds to the fun. I mean, i know i have to give fuel to start the engine, i won't get confused if i have to flip an extra switch to select the wing tanks.

In any case, i agree that if they can't find exact sequences then it's better to go with an auto-start instead of giving all aircraft the same sequence. However, i'm very glad they confirmed that despite the lack of a start-up sequence the rest of the systems will have an actual effect in the flying.

I think that's a good compromise and as long as people suffer misfires, failed starts and rough running even with auto-start and have to take care during the fight, i'm going to be highly satisfied.

To sum up, from what's been confirmed it looks like this:
1) We can't use the full start-up sequence
2) However we can operate EVERYTHING else in the cockpit, fuel tank selectors, arming panel switches, everything

which leads me to deduce that the only thing they are not modeling is the actual start-up procedure. It looks like everything else will work as it should.

Finally, i also agree about making these things optional. I'll probably fly it with all difficulty options at maximum but other people want to jump straight to the action, let them do it so it can sell more copies ;)

ElAurens
02-01-2011, 05:44 PM
Great post Blackdog_kt.

CharveL
02-01-2011, 07:49 PM
Great post Blackdog_kt.

+1

Krt_Bong
02-01-2011, 08:29 PM
I know that you can use the magnetos in IL-2 they are in the controls and at this point are really only good for accidently shutting off your engine, if you have the keys set for them but you really don't need them. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have them in a full real setting with complete systems management, and have to actually use it. I like the idea of having to keep a plane running correctly and not just press a key and fly without worry. The Black Shark Model is a great example even simplified it demonstrates what flying a real aircraft entails. I watched a video on I think the A2A P-47 and it was kinda cool to see the switches thrown the primer pumped and the prop slowly turn and then roar to life, mixture and prop pitch set and then taxi. This is what I would expect to see.

Sutts
02-02-2011, 09:41 AM
I know that you can use the magnetos in IL-2 they are in the controls and at this point are really only good for accidently shutting off your engine, if you have the keys set for them but you really don't need them. It wouldn't be a bad thing to have them in a full real setting with complete systems management, and have to actually use it. I like the idea of having to keep a plane running correctly and not just press a key and fly without worry. The Black Shark Model is a great example even simplified it demonstrates what flying a real aircraft entails. I watched a video on I think the A2A P-47 and it was kinda cool to see the switches thrown the primer pumped and the prop slowly turn and then roar to life, mixture and prop pitch set and then taxi. This is what I would expect to see.


I agree that the A2A products are excellent and I really hope they can hook up with 1c and CoD in the future.

The magneto switch in IL2 may seem irrelevant but it allows those who like pre-take off checks to perform a magneto check - and the RPMs do actually drop a little like they should when you switch to individual mags.

Although Oleg keeps stating that startup procedures aren't supported, we should have most of what we need to peform them. It would be nice to be able to have a mode where you climb into a cockpit and all the systems are in shut down mode from the last flight however.

In terms of the items relevant to pre-startup and warmup procedures we should have:

Throttle
Mixture
Prop controls
Fuel cock
Magnetos
Starter button
Trim wheels and gauge
Undercarriage selector
Sliding canopy
Brakes (hopefully parking catch too)
Air pressure gauge (hopefully)
Fuel tank gauge
Oil pressure gauge
Oil temp gauge
Coolant gauge

The items I think we'll be missing are:
Booster button
Wobble pump to pressurise fuel lines
Ki-gas primer
Battery switch (where applicable to model)
Fuel booster pump (where applicable to model)

Of the above, I think the Ki-gas primer will be the most missed as it could be fun to learn to prime according to the state of the engine and it really makes you feel you've got a real, possibly temperamental engine up front.

On the whole though, I think we haven't done badly, as long as the systems behave in a realistic manner.

PE_Tigar
02-02-2011, 10:42 AM
I'd like to see it as true to life as possible with switches for those who don't.

It would be great to be able to see realistic power/temp/consumption behaviour when operating with rich and lean mixtures.

I've also never been able to over-rev the prop in Il2 which was a dangerous situation in the real aircraft.

Also seeing engine problems develop from over and under boost and operating over and under the recommended temps/pressures would be a great step forward.

If the devs can make it operate as closely as possible to the numbers in the flight manual then I'll be a very happy guy.

+1

Therion_Prime
02-02-2011, 10:55 AM
IL-2:CoD with A2A Accusim would be sooo awesome.

In IL-2 I can fly my Bf109-G2 at exactly 103% without overheating. All the time, on every map regardless of outside temperature - it's really boring.

I own the A2A P-47 with Accusim expansion and I really enjoy it. I once blew the oil pump by throtteling up too much and too early during a takeoff on a cold day for example.

And to be able to review your engine's status after a flight is enlightening, too.
Ah, two fouled plugs -> did I maintain too low rpm after engine startup?
Three cylinders in bad condition -> too high rpm? too much turbo? mixture wrong?

Finally, the ability to keep 'your' plane with all it's little quirks from flight to flight is another highlight.

Then after a few flights I finally knew what 'she' likes and what not.
With Accusim the plane somehow gets it's own personality that I miss so much in IL-2.

I hope that CoD can at least deliver half of this experience!

ECV56_Lancelot
02-02-2011, 12:12 PM
For me, the ideal thing is the way Black Shark does it. There's the ability to do an automatic start, but it's not a magical "press key to start engine" affair: the automatic start goes through all the steps of a manual one, it's just like an invisible co-pilot is doing it. The end result of this is that experienced people can actually do it faster than the PC and this gives an incentive to use the manual mode. Also, it lets people decide on what interface to use, you can map everything to keyboard and HOTAS but you can also click on things.

+1

ElAurens
02-02-2011, 12:51 PM
All you A2A fans need to realize that none of their current modeling practices would be accepted by Oleg because they have no damage model, no weapons, and as far as I know, no internal structure.

They are FSX eye candy planes designed for proceedure training, and nothing more.

And yes I have their P40. A nice external and cockpit model to be sure, but really no reason to have it in FSX at all because you cannont use it for what it was designed for.

Mock attacks on the odd Cessna were wholly ungratifying.

JG4_Helofly
02-02-2011, 02:06 PM
All you A2A fans need to realize that none of their current modeling practices would be accepted by Oleg because they have no damage model, no weapons, and as far as I know, no internal structure.

They are FSX eye candy planes designed for proceedure training, and nothing more.

And yes I have their P40. A nice external and cockpit model to be sure, but really no reason to have it in FSX at all because you cannont use it for what it was designed for.

Mock attacks on the odd Cessna were wholly ungratifying.

Why is there no reason to have these warbirds in FSX? IMO planes from this era are more than just dogfight machines. Just having to fly them correctly is an interesting challenge.
If no one would care about the flying non-combat part (95% of a mission) we wouldn't need any improvements in this area.

I mean, it's your choice how you want to fly the simulation, but after all it's still about realism.
Like some people wrote earlier: The most important thing is that complex engines have an impact on the way we fly and fight. To get closer to realistic flying. The rest is a bonus.

Blackdog_kt
02-02-2011, 03:12 PM
All you A2A fans need to realize that none of their current modeling practices would be accepted by Oleg because they have no damage model, no weapons, and as far as I know, no internal structure.


That's why they could simply make mods for existing aircraft rather than the whole of it. ;)

For example, you get Oleg's stock 109E that includes all those things you mentioned. Then A2A comes along and releases "109E enhanced: mod for IL2:CoD" or something like that, which includes the extra bits: stuff like detailed procedures, the carry-over of wear and tear from one mission to the next and a mechanic's dossier telling us what's wrong with the plane, for people who like to add some extra immersion in their single player campaigns or some extra challenge in their multiplayer habits.

People who want to fly and fight stick with the stock model, people who want the extra something get the mod and install it. And most of all, all of them can play on the same servers with a single installation of the game, because there's a server-enforced list of allowed mods that turns them on and off for you automatically, much like the difficulty settings.

Well, at least that's how i would do it if i wanted to accommodate as many people as possible without dividing the community. There is always a way ;)

Richard
02-02-2011, 03:35 PM
Of course it would have to be an option. Everyone has different ideas of how a combat flight sim should be programmed. It goes from hardcore simulation fans, to fast action arcade flyers.

About lenghty start up procedures: Warbirds aren't modern jetfighters. There aren't 1000 subsytems to worry about. I looked at the procedures for the spit I. If the engine is already warm (ready for scramble) you only have to use about 6 switches and some prime strokes. So, ready to go in under 60 sec.

Modern Jet fighters aren't hard to start up from scratch either. You must remember that they also need to have a "scramble capability" , so the process of starting up an F22 isn't that complicated at all. (I've heard that it's as simple as basically just pushing "one" button and bring the throttles up to the "idle" position.)

Regarding CEM, I dont mind if it's really complex, as long as its scalable.

ElAurens
02-02-2011, 03:42 PM
Please do not mis understand me. In flight complex proceedures are OK by me.

My post about the A2A models was simply to point out that I don't think they can make a model to Oleg's level of detail, and sell it at a price that most, and certainly myself, would pay. It's a long jump from a fancy cockpit and high poly count external model, to a fully realized model like CoD has, with poly counts that actually allow online play as well, someting the FSX folks have never had to worry about.

JagdNeun
02-02-2011, 04:37 PM
One of things that just doesn't seem to be modelled is the weight aspect of the amount of fuel onboard. Maybe it's just me, but the difference between 25 percent fuel and 100 percent should be fairly significant and it never really feels right to me. This is going to be fairly important in BOB as the Luftwaffe will be on fumes over England and should have a short lived advantage before they dodge back to France.

whatnot
02-02-2011, 06:03 PM
My post about the A2A models was simply to point out that I don't think they can make a model to Oleg's level of detail, and sell it at a price that most, and certainly myself, would pay. It's a long jump from a fancy cockpit and high poly count external model, to a fully realized model like CoD has, with poly counts that actually allow online play as well, someting the FSX folks have never had to worry about.

Not sure what you meant by a price you or most wouldn't pay, but ppl tend to pay 20-40$ for a high fidelity add-on for FSX. I'm not sure why they (and me) wouldn't pay the same for CoD add-on if you get all the bells and whistles that one gets with Accu-Sim packages for FSX. I would assume that it's possible to build a CoD capable HiFi plane for 30$ for example as the whole title doesn't cost much more than that.

Maybe the nutjobs paying such an amount only play FSX but I would assume they sometimes want to pull the trigger and shred something to pieces instead of just seeing a muzzle flash as they do in FSX. And that's where CoD would come in.

ElAurens
02-02-2011, 07:06 PM
The A2A P40 was the only FSX aircraft that I purchased, and frankly it was not worth the money.

Hell, I don't think RoF's $7.62 single seaters are worth it either.

I don't think Oleg will change his business model of offering new aircraft in patches, for free, or in reasonably priced expansions that also include maps, ground objects, new missions, etc...

Therion_Prime
02-03-2011, 07:45 AM
All you A2A fans need to realize that none of their current modeling practices would be accepted by Oleg because they have no damage model, no weapons, and as far as I know, no internal structure.

They are FSX eye candy planes designed for proceedure training, and nothing more.

And yes I have their P40. A nice external and cockpit model to be sure, but really no reason to have it in FSX at all because you cannont use it for what it was designed for.

Mock attacks on the odd Cessna were wholly ungratifying.

I'm not talking about adding an A2A plane into CoD, but enhancing existing CoD planes with their Accusim technology.

And btw. the A2A P40 does NOT have Accusim!

ElAurens
02-03-2011, 12:33 PM
To be honest I have not flown FSX in some time and it and all the addons were deleted from my hard drive.

I just never found it capable of holding my interest.

Blackdog_kt
02-03-2011, 04:10 PM
Please do not mis understand me. In flight complex proceedures are OK by me.

My post about the A2A models was simply to point out that I don't think they can make a model to Oleg's level of detail, and sell it at a price that most, and certainly myself, would pay. It's a long jump from a fancy cockpit and high poly count external model, to a fully realized model like CoD has, with poly counts that actually allow online play as well, someting the FSX folks have never had to worry about.

I actually agree with you, especially in regards to optimization for smooth gameplay with lots of AI or other players around. That's why i thought they could probably make plane specific enhancement packs they could sell for a few bucks, instead of an entire flyable to be sold separately for $30 like they do in FSX.

The way i imagine it is they could have something like an "109E enhancement pack" that just adds on top of the stock model some features from their accusim releases. That's two things mainly, since the rest are probably already covered by the Maddox team: start-up/shut-down and the carry over of damage/wear and tear from mission to mission with an accompanying virtual mechanic interface to repair it. The rest of the aircraft would still be Oleg's 109E.

Honestly, i don't think such an addon would see much use online, so why am i discussing this? Wel, if it was reasonably priced (say around $10 more or less, since they would only need to add a few things on an existing model) it would probably go well with people who fly a lot of offline campaigns or split their time between single and multi-player, for the reasons someone else pointed out before. It gives your personal ride a set of individual quirks and handling peculiarities which also depend on your handling and carry over during the course of the campaign.

I probably wouldn't use something like this online where every single aircraft is modelled to the best of its capabilities (the late war 109s don't have low quality fuel, neither do the early war Yaks suffer random failures because they were put together by unskilled laborers), but i would like it if i was flying a long single-player campaign.

To sum up, the innovative thing about A2A's releases is their accusim packages that go on top of and interface with some of their pre-existing models and not the actual models themselves, so maybe they could do something similar for Oleg's models in the future.

I think it's too early to go there however. Since we only have one theater at this point in time, we won't be able to have a campaign like IL2's excellent user made "from murmansk to morocco", where you start flying 110s in Poland and travel all around the major theaters.

For now, the best think to do would be to just sit back, observe and digest what the new game engine by Maddox can do. In fact, by going back and revisiting some of the older videos, especially the first leaked video with the Spitfire cockpit view, i saw certain behaviors in the aircraft model that are common with accusim packs. For example, you can see the needles in the instruments bouncing around as the prop governor is troubling to keep the RPMs in check, as well as the airspeed gauge being erratic as it flies near clouds where turbulence and rough air can be encountered. Who knows, maybe CoD already has everything we need included in the stock models? ;)

To be honest i'm certainly hoping so, mainly because i prefer Oleg's business model of "$50 for an entire theater with maps, AI units and ten flyables" to the "$5 per individual flyable and that's it" sales system that results in people with too different content in their installations that fragments the multiplayer potential.