A good idea on the performance issues

[Sternjaeger]

Dear friends, I will post Heliofly's brilliant idea below here, with the hope that you might find it a good idea and that somehow our devs will see this one.

Maybe it would help if there would be a performance difference of about + or - 3% for every plane every time you fly. So even if the enemy flys a slightly faster plane, you don't know if he has a good production model or not. You might even be equally fast with a very well build slower plane. In fact, that's what happened in RL.

if you have ideas on how to further improve the idea please post below.

LINK to the original thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=23741)

[JG52Krupi]

I voted no.

This could lead to an even worse situation than we have atm, some of us don't even have the time to become competent at flying an aircraft that doesn't change everytime you fly it.

This idea could deter future customers, the sim is already complex enough as it is.

Good idea and realistic but not something I would like to see.

[Ze-Jamz]

I voted no.

This could lead to an even worse situation than we have atm, some of us don't even have the time to become competent at flying an aircraft that doesn't change everytime you fly it.

This idea could deter future customers, the sim is already complex enough as it is.

Good idea and realistic but not something I would like to see.

+1

[pupo162]

i voted yes.

a small balance in fms wont change much, on the overall picture, a 109 will still outrun a hurri, but wont be able to relly on those 2kmh extra against a spit.

Then again, liek everithing in this sim, it should be put as a difficulty option. people who dont want to use it, simple go to servers where its not used.

[JG52Krupi]

If this goes ahead were going to see 9 times the theads that we currently see , three threads for the max, middle and lowest performance for each aircraft.

Dear oh dear if I were working at MG I would be grabbing my coat after reading this thread... :D

Seriously we cant agree on one fm for an aircraft how are we going to agree on three per aircraft and how often we get each one......

[louisv]

This would be interesting if aircrafts were persistent.

I mean that from one gaming session to the next the plane keeps the same condition (as in A2A's Spitfire), so that in a campaign, you really have your own aircraft. You take care of it with your trusted crew chief...or lone mechanic, and it could be tweaked.

Then it would be interesting. But as it is it would be only frustrating and create situations. So I voted no. Maybe in a year, but only in campaign mode and switchable on or off.

Louisv

[Sternjaeger]

If this goes ahead were going to see 9 times the theads that we currently see , three threads for the max, middle and lowest performance for each aircraft.

Dear oh dear if I were working at MG I would be grabbing my coat after reading this thread... :D

I think you are completely missing the point.

The idea, which is a good reflection of what happened in REAL LIFE, could address a lot of the alleged unfairness, by adding a random, unbeknown to the player, performance increase or decrease of a minor percentage.

If anything it could be deactivated as an option, I think you're being too dramatic man ;)

[JG52Krupi]

I am not being dramatic I am looking at the big picture. We can't agree on anything in this community thus this will just lead to more arguments.

Also if you do get a rubbish aircraft you will find ppl will turn around and land and keep on doing this until they have the best version, come on we KNOW that this will happen.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea but in practice ppl will try to take advantage of this, I'm just trying to be realistic but I fear I am coming off a pessimist :(

[Vengeanze]

Also if you do get a rubbish aircraft you will find ppl will turn around and land and keep on doing this until they have the best version, come on we KNOW that this will happen.

I would NEVER do that!! ;-)

[Wolf_Rider]

;) no, none of us would

[pupo162]

I am not being dramatic I am looking at the big picture. We can't agree on anything in this community thus this will just lead to more arguments.

Also if you do get a rubbish aircraft you will find ppl will turn around and land and keep on doing this until they have the best version, come on we KNOW that this will happen.

how would you know you have a lesser performer aircraift??? would you waste 10 mins of oyur life doing a speed test over the base? even tough teh speed is altered by the climeteric conditions?

maybe 3% is a litle bit to much, 1% or maybe 2 would semm more proper reducing or increasing somehting like 5 to 10 kmh.

[JG52Krupi]

Lol I can just imagine some of the arguments that would occur online :D

[JG52Krupi]

how would you know you have a lesser performer aircraift??? would you waste 10 mins of oyur life doing a speed test over the base? even tough teh speed is altered by the climeteric conditions?

maybe 3% is a litle bit to much, 1% or maybe 2 would semm more proper reducing or increasing somehting like 5 to 10 kmh.

It takes 3 mins to find out the speed of the aircraft at a certain height.

Damn at 1000 my aircraft only going x I'm going to land to try and get y.

[ATAG_Doc]

No way Jose!

[pupo162]

It takes 3 mins to find out the speed of the aircraft at a certain height.

Damn at 1000 my aircraft only going x I'm going to land to try and get y.

anyway, in coops you cna go ahead and land if you dont like your plane. I dont get why wouldnt want this so bad, if it could exist, i shurly would be optional.

[Sternjaeger]

so basically what you're saying is that we can't have a realistic feature because it would be used as an advantage point? How sad is that?

Sometimes I wonder why some people even bothers with this sim and doesn't go for the arcade versions..

[VO101_Tom]

maybe, but...
Did anybody do an effect study? That this value changes something really? To this it would be necessary to know it, what now the "ingame" values. But wait a minute. We do not have an idea of this, it FM just under adaptation...

I would put even chance engine failures into it. This was a topic already here, rejected the developers (or Oleg himself), the game would not be balanced saying... No doubt, complicated case.

[pupo162]

all engines on cod are now set to a 0.0% engine failure possibility.

[JG52Krupi]

so basically what you're saying is that we can't have a realistic feature because it would be used as an advantage point? How sad is that?

Sometimes I wonder why some people even bothers with this sim and doesn't go for the arcade versions..

Look mate I said I like the idea but you have to take into account everything and to get around the problems I mentioned you would have to have a low chance of getting the good quality aircraft or have a very low increase which would beg the question of if the developers should even bother with it.

[Jatta Raso]

i see the best of will behind this, but it just isn't the time to start asking for this perks; CoD is in enough trouble as it is right now, many of its basic functionality are flawed, and at the moment this kind of petition is asking for more trouble...

... so it's a NO

[Bloblast]

all engines on cod are now set to a 0.0% engine failure possibility.

I would like to have engine failures. Very realistic I would say.
One you can add as an option for realism.

But the basic for CoD must first be all right.

[Sternjaeger]

Look mate I said I like the idea but you have to take into account everything and to get around the problems I mentioned you would have to have a low chance of getting the good quality aircraft or have a very low increase which would beg the question of if the developers should even bother with it.

stuff like performance changing according to engine hours, wear and tear, random engine or magneto/pump failure should all be there. The idea of the percentage is just to find a balance in the alleged lack of accuracy. You wouldn't know what plane you have, whether it performs as it's supposed to or not, just like in real life, and this could iron out the "perfomance to chart" issues in a compromise form that might find everybody happy. We all would have the same fair chance of a failure or a particularly performing / not performing plane (within minimum percentage of course, which would be so marginal not to make it worth to restart or do any other silly choice).

I don't see why you guys immediately point at it as a whine/cheat factor. It's not the mentality that would help us develop further. Whiners can be politely asked to either take the rule or find another game (since we're aiming at accuracy here), while cheats can be solved by giving a limited number of planes available, which you have to take care of and manage like the real thing, instead of yanking it in the air like an air racer.

[MadBlaster]

There is randomness and variation in the old game, 1946. Some can be mitigated by pilot, some can't. First, fuel load. This impacts performance at any point in time. Pilot has some control over this on how he flies. Pushing the throttle will use fuel at faster rate during the sortie and a G-10 at 100% fuel performs much different then at 30%. So, there are times you may turn with a spit and other times you won't. Second, DT put in the latest patches engine reliability randomness and g-limits that tweak the airframe if exceeded, both impacting performance. The engine reliability is only partially controllable by the pilot. Somewhere in the "read me" for that patch it says something about just having a bad day or reference to bad production as the war went on. So that element is not controllable. But if you are easy on the engine, it says your odds improve. The g-limit, however, is fully controllable by the pilot. Third, there is randomness in loadouts that impacts weight and performance. Sometime you choose the 108 cannon, sometimes you don't. That added weight should change how you fly it imo.

Bottom line of this jumble, I like the idea of variation as long as it is realistic and not redundant to what may already be built into the game. The short time I spent with CLoD, it seemed to me they had all these elements carry over from the 1946 game. Since I'm not playing it, I won't vote. I'll just say I think this should be low priority because I think it ultimately gets blurred by all the other randomness that may already be in there. I'm also not a believer that 5 kph in top speed makes a difference. If someone is beating you because of that, you need to do something different.

[JG52Krupi]

Your asking a lot from the developers and if you can't see the difference why even bother with it in the first place.

Regarding the whiners being asked to leave politely AHHAhGhrgghh.. Cough.. Splutter... Ah ah ahem... Take a look at some of the other threads which contain whiners that have no intention of giving MG a rest :(

[JG52Krupi]

Very very well said.

There is randomness and variation in the old game, 1946. Some can be mitigated by pilot, some can't. First, fuel load. This impacts performance at any point in time. Pilot has some control over this on how he flies. Pushing the throttle will use fuel at faster rate during the sortie and a G-10 at 100% fuel performs much different then at 30%. So, there are times you may turn with a spit and other times you won't. Second, DT put in the latest patches engine reliability randomness and g-limits that tweak the airframe if exceeded, both impacting performance. The engine reliability is only partially controllable by the pilot. Somewhere in the "read me" for that patch it says something about just having a bad day or reference to bad production as the war went on. So that element is not controllable. But if you are easy on the engine, it says your odds improve. The g-limit, however, is fully controllable by the pilot. Third, there is randomness in loadouts that impacts weight and performance. Sometime you choose the 108 cannon, sometimes you don't. That added weight should change how you fly it imo.

Bottom line of this jumble, I like the idea of variation as long as it is realistic and not redundant to what may already be built into the game. The short time I spent with CLoD, it seemed to me they had all these elements carry over from the 1946 game. Since I'm not playing it, I won't vote. I'll just say I think this should be low priority because I think it ultimately gets blurred by all the other randomness that may already be in there. I'm also not a believer that 5 kph in top speed makes a difference. If someone is beating you because of that, you need to do something different.

[JG4_Helofly]

Wow! I didn't expect this :)

The idea I had behind this, was that people often complaned about very little performance differences between aircraft. Especially online. The reason is simple: If you have a plane which is, let's say 2km/h, faster then your ennemy, he won't run away because sooner or later you will catch him. And this happens quite often online because you don't have to worry about fuel, getting in a dangerous situation, leaving your wingman alone, damaging your engine etc. If everything fails: hit "refly".
That's why random performance (+ or - 3%) could bring a little more realism to the game because planes with little difference in perf. would be seen as equal. Like in RL. In the game, a very slight difference is considered an advantage because you know you have these 2km/h no matter what.
Btw. these 3% where considered to be acceptable in RL if I remember correctly.

Of course we need to have RL performance as a base for this calculation. So one step at a time, but I think it would help the game in the future and calm down the FM discussions over ridiculously slight differences.

[Sternjaeger]

Your asking a lot from the developers and if you can't see the difference why even bother with it in the first place.

Regarding the whiners being asked to leave politely AHHAhGhrgghh.. Cough.. Splutter... Ah ah ahem... Take a look at some of the other threads which contain whiners that have no intention of giving MG a rest :(

I don't know if that's a lot, but anyways..

Whiners can suck my throttle, I think that once a software house decides on the way to proceed and justifies the choices, setting a benchmark and a position in the market (accurate sim vs not so accurate), then it's either their way or the out way.

[ZaltysZ]

Yes, it could smooth FM errors and lower the count of "inaccurate FM" whiners, but sadly it can increase amount of "quality control" moaners. You know, the ones that would say German planes should be 97-103% of factory specs, and Soviet ones should be 75%-95%, and so on. Someone would bring documents about plane testing before its acceptance to service, and how high quality control was, and in essence we would have same debates like we had over FM.

[JG52Krupi]

Yes, it could smooth FM errors and lower the count of "inaccurate FM" whiners, but sadly it can increase amount of "quality control" moaners. You know, the ones that would say German planes should be 97-103% of factory specs, and Soviet ones should be 75%-95%, and so on. Someone would bring documents about plane testing before its acceptance to service, and how high quality control was, and in essence we would have same debates like we had over FM.

Yes and another things that I can now mention (at home, hate typing in this forum with my iphone) you have touched on. SOME would say/moan that due to the bombing the late war Luftwaffe aircraft would have a huge performance difference. Then the Luftwaffe could come back and say/moan that allied pilots should have a handicap due to lack of experience etc etc etc..... and while were at it the allied are allowed twice the number of pilots that the axis have as thats realistic :D okay I jest but all these things are true/realistic.

At the end of the day realism reaches a line and the developer has to determine if the game crosses that line and you start to loose fun or you try to keep the game fun.

Like others have touched on the -/+3% performance can be found when going up against pilots of varying skill.

EDIT:

I recall reading about various aircraft that, from different places of manufacture the performance changed, the spit I think was manufactured without following the blueprints correctly at one factory and the same was said for the 109 a certain factory was said to build a poor performance aircraft.

[Redroach]

thats a 'maybe' from me. I, for myself, striving for maximum realism (actually, I'd buy a DCS: Bf-109E-3 or a DCS: Spitfire MkIa in an instant!), would love to have production tolerances simulated in a reasonably good way.
But, let's face it: That would mean thousands of threads like "WTF? Same plane outclimbing me! BUG!" for years to come...

As for engine failure probabilities: there's actually a slider for that in general loadout options, regulating engine/airframe 'age'. Though I presume it doesn't work, just like the rest of the loadout screen.

[jg27_mc]

Voted yes. IMHO it will reward those who fly with discipline and appropriate tactics/team work, and can potentially punish the remaining people...

...But, let's face it: That would mean thousands of threads like "WTF? Same plane outclimbing me! BUG!" for years to come...

It could be optional. Wonder woman servers Off, realistic ones On. (it could be written on the server description/messages as well)

Regards.

[Sternjaeger]

Voted yes. IMHO it will reward those who fly with discipline and appropriate tactics/team work, and can potentially punish the remaining people...



It could be optional. Wonder woman servers Off, realistic ones On. (it could be written on the server description/messages as well)

Regards.

Indeed. It would bring back a lot of balance in the realism,cos ppl would have to treat their planes properly and learn to read the signs of problems.

[pupo162]

I would like to have engine failures. Very realistic I would say.
One you can add as an option for realism.

But the basic for CoD must first be all right.

if it works as i think its just a matter of putting in some numbers. work for 10 minutes. i will try and mod it this night.

[JG52Krupi]

If i recall engine failures were modeled so they just need to activate unless someone heard different?

[Sternjaeger]

whoa whoa guys, one thing is statistics, another is made up bollocks..

We're just talking about a machine performance issue here, which can vary normally, no historically related performance issues..

truth is that whiners will always find a reason to whine, if we have to worry about whiners then it's not even worth developing the game any further.

We need to think in terms of solid development to improve realism here, not of what people might think because it looked different in the movie Pearl Harbour..

[Redroach]

If i recall engine failures were modeled so they just need to activate unless someone heard different?

geez, why do I even bother to type a single letter? sigh

[JG52Krupi]

geez, why do I even bother to type a single letter? sigh

Sorry should have quoted you for the truth.

Does it work in FMB, like the other settings do?

[gelbevierzehn]

I would say YES..

But you have to acquire the higher perfomance.

For example:
If you rub with your mouse at least 2 hours over the skin of your 109, you'll earn the extra 5km/h top speed from the freshly polished airframe. :grin:

[DB605]

I would say YES..

But you have to acquire the higher perfomance.

For example:
If you rub with your mouse at least 2 hours over the skin of your 109, you'll earn the extra 5km/h top speed from the freshly polished airframe. :grin:

lol that's actually good idea too!
Back to topic, i voted yes.

[pupo162]

If i recall engine failures were modeled so they just need to activate unless someone heard different?

i believe you are right. there is a parameter for engine failure probability in all engine DM, but all are set to 0%. im about to teste what happens if increse the odds to ... lets say... 100%

[Redroach]

You may have dug something up here, Sherlock & Watson! Check my third-to-last post for further clues! :D

[JG52Krupi]

You may have dug something up here, Sherlock & Watson! Check my third-to-last post for further clues! :D

Clearly your in a lot of peoples ignore list redroach :lol: ;)

[Blackdog_kt]

i voted yes.

a small balance in fms wont change much, on the overall picture, a 109 will still outrun a hurri, but wont be able to relly on those 2kmh extra against a spit.

Then again, liek everithing in this sim, it should be put as a difficulty option. people who dont want to use it, simple go to servers where its not used.

Exactly my thoughts, i voted yes.

We could still have the "foundation" FM for each aircraft that we would still be able to test:

1) Disable the "production tolerances" in the realism settings, fly some test flights and record the results. This would be the default FM, based on flight test results and official documents (ie, the current situation).

2) The FM with "production tolerances" enabled would just be the default FM +/- 3% for each individual component to spice things up and it wouldn't only be limited to a flat 3% increment, it could also be 1% or 2% as long as it didn't exceed 3%.
So, i might get an airframe where my wing spars might be 1% weaker than nominal specifications but my supercharger might deliver 2% more power: i suddenly have an aircraft with slight reduced G-tolerance but also a slightly increased performance at higher altitudes.

This is not only realistic from the point of view that manufacturing defects or advantages would routinely find their way into airframe production back then, but it also allows us to turn it off if we don't like it or simply to test how accurate the basic foundation FM is.




Also if you do get a rubbish aircraft you will find ppl will turn around and land and keep on doing this until they have the best version, come on we KNOW that this will happen.

Don't get me wrong I like the idea but in practice ppl will try to take advantage of this, I'm just trying to be realistic but I fear I am coming off a pessimist :(

Oh they would, but coupled with some feature for continuity of airframe they would have to give up at some point and accept it, or chose a different server.

The idea is that the aircraft they landed would not disappear, it would just be added back to the pool of available airframes for that base. So, another or even the same player (heck, make his chances of spawning in the same aircraft higher if he lands in less than 10 minutes since taking off to discourage such behaviour) would spawn in that same airframe for the next sortie.

Upon loading the map/mission/online campaign, the server would randomize the manufacturing quality of available aircraft for each base. If an aircraft was written off or damaged and had to be repaired it would be taken off the pool permanently (in case of destruction) or temporarily (in case of fixable damage).

Then, as long as the factory was not bombed to hell and back and the ships/trains/motorized convoys stayed alive to bring replacement airframes and spare parts to the airfield, these parts/airframes would be added to the pool of available base material. Of course, these new aircraft/engines/wings/etc would also have their own +/-3% margin. With the rate we're going through aircraft online it wouldn't be long until we get a fresh one anyway.


P.S. This is one of those ideas that would fit perfectly in Luthier's "give me some holy shi*t moment ideas" thread that evolved into a general list of "cool features for the future", from back during development of the sim.

It's by no means something urgent (especially since the foundation FMs are still under fine tuning), it's just a cool feature we could have in a year or so.

[JG52Krupi]

I was just thinking couldn't this be implemented (albeit not to the same degree) using the weathering slider implemented (not sure if its available right now).

Say 0% is a perfect aircraft and 5% of aircraft on the field are supplied like this but the rest start off with between 5% - 15% weathering?

Just a thought.

[JG4_Helofly]

+1 for blackdog and pupo

We need such features to alow a more realistic and balanced gameplay. At the moment its like: "Oh sh**, they can fly 5km/h faster then we can. So Running is not an option." In RL they would say: "We are equally fast, lets dive and run!"
But as mentioned: We first need corrected FM.

[JG52Krupi]

+1 for blackdog and pupo

We need such features to alow a more realistic and balanced gameplay. At the moment its like: "Oh sh**, they can fly 5km/h faster then we can. So Running is not an option." In RL they would say: "We are equally fast, lets dive and run!"
But as mentioned: We first need corrected FM.

Man the more I hear this the more I hate the idea, yes its SLIGHTLY realistic as we will never know and will always argue about the differences of each aircraft but also because I loved in 1946 the feeling of knowing that someone with a faster plane is chasing me and then being able to throw them off and skim the tree tops home was so much fun.

From your post it sounded too much like you were trying to level the playing field and remove the simple fact that aircraft A was generally consider faster than aircraft B.

BOOO

[jimbop]

Voted yes. Easy to implement and would increase realism.

Debates about FM are ridiculous when discussing 1-3% performance difference anyway due to factory output variance. We still have such variation in even the most high tech industries today - for e.g. anyone overclocked a CPU lately?

[jimbop]

Man the more I hear this the more I hate the idea, yes its SLIGHTLY realistic as we will never know and will always argue about the differences of each aircraft but also because I loved in 1946 the feeling of knowing that someone with a faster plane is chasing me and then being able to throw them off and skim the tree tops home was so much fun.

From your post it sounded too much like you were trying to level the playing field and remove the simple fact that aircraft A was generally consider faster than aircraft B.

BOOO

It would not do this at all since you could end up with the opposite scenario where the difference is actually increased. I.e. Plane A has low performance variation vs Plane B with high performance. If B has a faster FM in the first place then it will have an even greater advantage than usual.

What the idea would do is remove the automatic assumption that B will always outrun A since the variations could be reversed.

[JG4_Helofly]

@ Krupi Let's not forget that we are talking about situations in which we have two almost identicaly performing aircraft. A very good hurricane would still be slower than a bad 109.

[swiss]

Pilot skills will cause a bigger difference than those 1-3%.

[Sternjaeger]

Pilot skills will cause a bigger difference than those 1-3%.

true, pilot skills and tactical situation I would add.

[Sternjaeger]

bump for who might have not seen this

[Bobb4]

Seriously NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The sim has already got engine wear modelled and this will give planes progressively worse performance as part of the game engine although I do not think it activated yet.
The last thing we need to do is to add random engine tuning/performance to the mix.
If you are skilled at CEM you can eak-out a few extra RPM, no problem. But to gift it to a pilot as a random "you got a good plane from the factory" event is plain stupid period.
Why not add an ejector seat and rocket packs and call the sim Duke Nukem Does Britain :grin:

[IbnSolmyr]

I voted yes, definitely yes !

And i hope there is (or will be) a signicant performance change related to the plane age. A pilot who let his machine always had to explain its specifications to the new pilot before this one flies with. And it's an obvious thing that a 100 hours aged plane doesn't feel and response as a brand new one !...