4.11 realism
 

Realistic engine/gun failures.
Now we have enforced realism for bombers,lets have some for the fighters as well:
You fly 45 minutes,and find your guns have jammed when you need them.
You are 100 KM's over the lines,when your oil pressure drops to zero,and your engine quits.
You take off,and your engine quits.
You get to high alt,then without warning your oxygen supply fails,and you die of ashyxiation.
Get rid of the refly button in dogfight servers.You die,or bail out,you have to leave the server and come back in,after losing all your precious points.
Sounds fair to me,after all,we are after realism.

oh god.

rise of frustration does this, and god above is it tedious.

It's OK for me, but it should be enabled at will, both on & offline.

Fighting online is stressful enough to add your 'bad luck' or 'goblins f****** job' factor to incorporate an additional touch of frustation to a, let's say, horrible mission where you have been downed several times without even noticing where the enemies came from.

I for myself would curse as never if, after such a strike of bad luck, you finally manage to get an enemy's 6 to find your guns jammed or your oil pressure indicator at null or your engine quiting.

Better not to tight the rope to that limits, IMHO.

Engadin.

Of course these things happened back in the day, but chances were rather small that these things occurred. That's why I don't want to see them in a simulator which focusses for the main part on having fun with a realistic ( to a certain limit ) simulator, including these probabilities isn't going to be the balance between realism and fun, which is why this is a computer game, not reality.

More functions and more systems in aircraft would be a better way to continue IL2, a more advanced damage system when hit by the enemy, for example.

An other feature I would like to have is the electric flight seat. If you die in the game, you get hit by 230V until you are dead. No refly button, no points and... no life.
After all it's about realism isn't it? :)

No seriously: Realism is great, but after all it's still a game and the goal is to have fun. I don't think that many people would like to have to leave the server after beeing killed all the time.

If you really want realism, fly coop missions. In those you don't have a refly button.

But random failures could be interesting. If I don't loose my engine in 5 missions out of 10.

Oh there are plenty of goodies that have not been modeled yet, that could make flying a real challenge. Think of all those liquid cooled aircraft, now imagine what happens when the radiator gets some hits and the cooling starts trickling out like your oil does?
Or a unnoticed burst tire, which fouls up a landing after a long and successful flight.
Heavy iceing on the wings, would also cause a certain amount of "suspence"
But I would prefer a fix on the bombs & torpedos that they still discharge even though one has been shot down in the time between release and impact. As that has nothing to do with reality at all.

Well TD's idea of realism has been forced on the bombers,its only fair the fighters get their share.
I think engine failure 5 out of 10 times might be a bit optimistic,if flying LW in 1944-45 from an occupied country.Sabotage was rife,so really we should have a problem maybe 8 or 9 times out of ten.

EDIT: nevermind.

Uther does not troll.

Since I don't fly bombers i haven't experienced this, surely it can't be that bad Uther!!!

Not at all.Its my request thread for 4.11.Are they banned? Or don't you want realism for fighters?

I'd just like to fly my 109 like it was flown in the manual. That the ATA meter pointed to 1.0 before you start the engine. Any more revs than 2300 excepting for brief periods and it would blow up the engine. A top speed at 2300 of over 500kph...instead 450kph. I'd be happy then. XXX

Oh, yes. :) And being an LW pilot, you should suffer from sleep deprivation, bad food and combat exhaustion. What’s more, red opponents should regularly outnumber you, 6 to 1 on average, and up to 30 to 1 on occasion...
Could be very fun!:grin:

Sounds good to me. I sense that you're sarcastic though I am not.

All those women who love watching south american "telenovelas", should read this forum...

So much drama here... so much drama, heartache and unfulfilled expectations...

So much drama...

What will happen in Season 4, Episode 11???

Is evil Teresa Dosamantes going to ruin another young life? Innocent Rosa, trying to find her way, in the cruel world, forced to choose between Fernando Fighteras, the flashy toreador, or the stalwart but unremarkable Don Skipier El Bombardero... Is the peaceful village of San Arcadas going to be burned to the ground by the bandits of Campo Real???

Don't miss the next episode of "Corazon de Volando Armadillo"!!!

Nope.

+


:rolleyes:


couldn't find a smilie for 'throwing rattle from pram' which would probably be more apt.

Well if you don't agree with realism Kendo no need to trash the thread.Don't quite understand why you put in that last quote,from another thread? I admit I can't skip bomb now,whats the problem? Hopefully TD will make it an option,if not,someone else doubless will.
Is it a problem to request realism options here?
Pretty sure Oleg will incorporate a lot of this in SoW,so if DT can't/won't do it for il2 thats fine,we don't have long to wait.

sounds like a fun-killer to me. unless it is selectable options that only the "full-real" servers enable.
well the luft engine failure rate sounds a bit OTT, but not that dramatic considering the state of the luftwaffe in the final days.

can we also model petrol shortages so only half the serviceable planes can get airborne?

Thats a good idea Titus,had not thought of that! Would be great in a campaign or online war!

knackered radios as well perhaps? instruments kicking the bucket randomly, compasses being out of whack, ammunition exploding prematurely in the barrel?

aye, great additions for proper hardcore online wars or campaigns i must admit.

Well I consider we already have 'knackered radio's' as in quite a few online war missions I fly there is 'radio silence'.The rest though,I'm all for it.

So your proposal for fighters is due to your strong and selfless desire for realism is it? Nice try, but it's obvious to anyone who has read your comments either in this thread or the quote from the fusing thread that it's got more to do with you throwing a strop about the game being changed in a way you don't like.

--------------------

Updated:responding to your reply here so as not to deflect the thread any further from its true purpose ;)

So regarding:"This is about fighters AND bombers.", I'd just direct people to read your comments on Page 1 in sequence and then make a judgement on whose reading of your motivation is likely to be more accurate?:

Ok. That's me finished in this thread and on the forum for a while. I've noticed I'm in danger of turning into one of the petty, point-scoring whingers that I used to laugh at when I first came here. After too much exposure to some of the posts here I can see just how easy it is to 'go rogue'. Cheers

May God grant Oleg and Team TD the infinite patience needed. :)

Wrong.Not in a strop at all.I don't like the way the fuse has been changed for il2,but as many seem to like it as don't like it,even though it has been shown to be incorrect.If we want to go the realism route,lets go for it.Sorry if you don't want the fighters changed,I bet there are many that do.
Again,you are trying to take the thread O/T.This is about fighters AND bombers.They suffered engine problems as well you know.

Loads of suckers to strafe :lol:

sugar in petrol tanks from partisan action?

Read a few LW pilot acounts of taking off in a new fighter,only to have oil spew out everywhere,because the engine block had been drilled at the factory!
Would be a brave saboteur to pour sugar in a tank on an operational airfield!
Anyway,sugar was probably unobtainable in the occupied countries later in the war.

true about the sugar tbf.

although the joy of having a brand new aircraft turn into an oil splattered ornament on rotation would be awesome.

The chances of mishaps should just be set according to where, when, and type of aircraft, I'm sure there's a lot of material out there to build a good statistically correct failure model after. Some theaters and aircraft would not suffer that many breakdowns or failures at all, while others would suffer plenty. It's all part of the challenge as I see it.
Sure, from the point of view of a single player it might be frustrating to fly along and suddenly suffer some sort of failure that makes him have to ditch the plane or what not, but battles are fought with more than one aircraft and the battles should be considered on a greater scale than your own single aircraft, it's the whole that counts.
And as such a statistically realistic failure system would therefore add to the challenge between two adversarial forces.

For instance: Can the late war Luftwaffe with their experienced pilots but aircraft plagued by high failure rates be a match for the allied air power?

As it is now we have arcadish battles in the sense that they are always fought between equal forces with all aircraft in perfect condition, that surely almost never happened.

So, I guess the question is this: do we want a simulation of single out-of-the-factory aircraft that can participate in fantasy battles, or do we want the best WWII air war simulation that money can buy?

I agree yellonet.Early war Eastern front,the Russian planes should probably have low serviceability compared to LW,yet in the late war period it was the LW that was in trouble,with poor quality fuel,sabotage,and lack of safe areas to service aircraft.
American and British aircraft would probably be pretty reliable in this period as well.
As for the early period of the western front ,I'm not sure,I would guess about equal servicability?

and consequently feel that crushing sense of the inevitable and the frustrations that hapless, outnumbered and ill-equipped pilots experienced at various parts of the war...

rather than the sense of fun we get from sitting at our desks and going "pew pew" at each other

I'm warming to this idea. We could put a ban on the D-day maps from the blue perspective, as they didn't actually show up at the beaches. And if you do fly for the Luftwaffe say at any point from mid 44 onward, and you have an engine failure or any other technical problem, the game could lock up for a week until the repairs are actually done - should be simple to implement the game phoning home to a 1C server and preventing the blue planes from flying on your installation for say a week or two of real time. I like the thinking behind this thread.

Just like with everything else, some people would love it and other would hate it.
Personally I would love to see this implemented as it would add to the overall realism and at least give you a minute taste of some aspect of war, stress and feeling of not being in total control.
It would perhaps also make people fly their missions more realistically too as if you know that your plane can fail at any moment you're likely to be more careful with it while at the same time trying to accomplish your mission faster than you would otherwise.

This is one of the reasons why I personally like early/mid war battles best, because there I can sort of buy that both sides are somewhat equally matched with pretty good reliability.
When it comes to late war battles and both sides are equally strong, both in numbers and in reliability I just feel that it isn't how it should be.

To me, always having equally matched sides in battles dumbs down the game and makes it less than it could be, it more or less makes all battles a series of duels, team tactics are made more or less superfluous, you just get in and grind!

Wouldn't it be fun to for instance be on the German side late in the war, and have a specific goal that needs to be completed while you're drastically outnumbered and have not so reliable aircraft, all odds against you, but with the right plan and tactics you just may pull it off.
Accomplishing something like that would at least make me feel good.

As usual the nay-sayers pop up with these exaggerated "suggestions".
Adding realistic times for this such as repairs isn't within the scope of this simulation.
When you die or lose your aircraft you're simply respawning to control a different pilot.

As IL-2 and SoW is meant to simulate the air battles of WWII, it seems like a strange idea to cut out a large and vital part of these battles, namely how the respective air forces as a whole actually was performing and was matched up against each other.

So, while on one hand you're flying a realistic aircraft modeled in every detail, at the same time you're flying it into a battle that is essentially reduced to a mockery of the actual battle were real people fought and died.

Gawd give me strength....

Brilliant! :grin:

Wouldn't mind the gun jams and hypoxia though. I'd also suggest saftey catches on/off, cold engines and a chance of hitting the tail when you bail out.

That was really funny Vparez :)

Now if you really want realism ...

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y101/clannagh/guns.jpg

BoB aircraft guns would not fire until the pneumatic pressure had built up and the gun heaters had done their job :D

Gunjams, please!

Talking about realism:

The Airacobra’s nose wheel moves every time I move the rudder peddles, whats with that?

;)

I really hope that such things are implemented.
It would certainly be very nice if BoB:SoW took WWII aircraft to the same simulation level as DCS:Warthog has taken the A-10C.

The engine failuires is to give the pilots a good reason to easy their engines and fly properly.

However this will make more sense when difference in reliability will modeled for diferent aircraft. I think reliability is a important thing since it was a worry in aircraft design not only perfomance. Some aircraft advantage or disadvantage was exactly its reliability and no considering reliablity we are negating its advantages and disadvantages.

And part of the reliability is due to the properly management of their aircraft by the pilots. The reliability is a good feature for harcore pilots who wants more immersion at least until where the technology allows. Some things are impossible to be modelled but if it it can be and its safe for the player (that example of electric chair was silly, discuss with real arguments, not fallacy), why not?

No one wants to change your way to fly. If you do not like reliability disable it. :evil:

That things are rare because pilots were trained, made checklist before flying and tried to fly their ships in the proper way. If they flew wrong, at 110% almost time, overheating, the failures must be much more frequent. If not why they have checklists before the take off or procediments to engage the resources of the aircraft.

+1. Different reliability between models would slow down actual UFOs. But kept as optional, so that everybody can choose if they want it or not.

What about a pilot fatigue meter that limits the activity of your pilot the more you throw your AC about? It's fair to say that there's a fair bit of real player tiredness with lots of action and long sorties, but no longer term G effects or muscle fatigue. The meter would effect what your pilot can do and would recuperate during less active spells.

Could be switchable of course....

(Hello BTW, been following the forums for months, but thought I'd contribute.... Thanks for all the great discussions! :grin:)

Badger

Very good suggestion! Getting wounded would also take away a chunk from that meter, if it's a serious wound it would gradually lower the meter and so forth...

Hmm I wonder how this could be made.......but then thinking of the bomber crews......that where rated as "Flak-Happy" or the real bad cases that got in their records stamped "lack of moral fibre".......just need to think of that movie "Memphis Bell" where the navigator is on that mission a nervous wreck.
But I think if things like raditator leaks, icing, burst tires, electrical fires, engine failures, or a real joy, when you want to drop your bombs and one or two do not release and you have to return with those "firecrackers" still on your aircraft. I think we would have plenty to chew!

actually, I would love to see the icing of the wings implemented.. I love new challenges not only in terms df-ing but also in just handeling a plane. The new navigational tools with wind effects is more than welcome.

Here's => http://www.jamesreese.org/hangarflying/ a nice series of articles concerning the P-38

Better mk108 damage.

Ive shot at fighters that only lost a elevator, rudder, or aileron.

A single hit should do more damage to fighter aircraft, and certainly at the wings, as a 30mm hit on the wings was fatal.

Ive shot at a p-51 two times with a mk108, and the aircraft still was in one piece.
After 3th hit the mustang fell apart.

Ive shot a tempest 1 time at the wing with the mk108, and he only lost a aileron and kept on flying.

A mk108 30mm hit at the wing should rip the wing off, at least for fighter aircraft.

Actually the wing stays on - but the receiving end will loose control of the plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoLLDi-M3fk

You're dining with your comrades, eating borscht and drinking vodka, and suddenly you have to scramble because your field is being attacked. Then in the air you sometimes get disoriented and dizzy, and the next thing you know you have some strange substance all over your canopy from negative G's. It's like an alien invasion, the Blob is here to get you.

That would be a nice one, a chance that in a scramble mission, you're not feeling too well (or bound not to).

Would be hilarious if when you're taking aim, a thunderous HACHOOO throws your aim off, and your flight, in choir, yells GESUNDHEIT!

Actually a plane travelling in the air would be under constraints from the air and the probability that the wing breaks off after getting such damage is close to 100 %

http://www.cieldegloire.com/musee/degats30mm.jpg

Other effect of 1 MK108 round on a spitfire.

Hohoho!

The 30mm munition test shows the wing damage when the aircraft is stationary.

Under normal flight conditions the wing folds soon after impact, because the increased drag will weaken the damaged wing construction untill it falls apart.

You wont be able to control the airplane.

WW2 fighter aircraft simply arent big enough to withstand this kind of damage. Even large bombers needed only a few hits.

I thought I would test this ingame a little.


I shot single 30mm rounds at a spitfire's wing root in flight at ~0degrees to the wing plane. I repeated it 10 times.

The results where:

Survived with damage: 4
PK or control loss: 1
Fire: 1
Wing Loss: 4

There are some screens from the test here: http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/8397/30mm.jpg

I don't draw any conclusions my self from this little test, but I thought it might be interesting.

Incidentally, Mk108s (and all cannon) do do more damage since 4.10 because any damage they do now counts towards a lower structural G-Limit.

Yes the structural G-Limit is one of the good things of 4.10 this was something which has been missed for a very long time!

I find it very strange that after a 30mm round hits the wing, it sometimes falls apart and sometimes not, under the same conditions.

Each round fired at the wing should have the same probability of ripping it off, under the same conditions.

I can see this after hitting someone the plane suddenly looses e.g. wing easier, but has it been confirmed by TD to be so or just a feeling? 4.10 manual doesn't mention about G-Limits acting that way - they speak only about damage when exceeding the G-limit.

I'm surprised you find that strange. It appears normal to me.
In the same way that if I crashed a car into a brick wall 100 times at roughly the same speed, I wouldn't be surprised if the wall sometimes fell over and sometimes didn't.

That depents on the size of the car and the wall.

If the car is big enough the wall will fall over 100 out of 100 times.

Well, yes. Making no assumptions about wall/car size, I wouldn't be surprised if the wall always fell over, never fell over or only sometimes fell over.

I wasn't trying to imply that wings should sometimes fall off or not fall off when hit with 30mm rounds. I don't have an opinion about how much damage should be done.
I just meant that different test results under roughly the same test conditions in general, don't surprise me.

Agreed. I was going to say something similar.

Frankly with the limited time I have to fly online I'd be upset if I was flying for 45 minutes and found that my guns were jammed. Or any of the scenarios above you mentioned. If these options were available as a server setting then great.. but I wouldn't use them... ever. I don't do this for that kind of realism.. I do it for fun.. and to me that is not fun. That woule be even worse than flying for 45 minutes and getting taken out by flak.

To each his own...

I think this is something that really happened, but at max altitude when weapons froze.

But are bombers really that realistic now?

If you die close to enemy airport ,in a fighter, this would be great! :cool: I hate vulchers :evil: , if server allows it ok put it in option :rolleyes:

Exactly Bearcat! One reason why the dictated bombfusing thing is so annoying as you have no option other than to skip 4.10 totally at the moment.

What you are proposing means to throw the baby out with the bath water!
It seems that you are incapable to adjust to slightly elevated difficultys.
Mankinds greatest advantage was and is to adapt to new circumstances and use them at the best.

Sure I am certain some might even be able to drop a bomb with a 5min arming time, and??
Does that justify something that is purely random?
Wonder what your type would say if those things JG52Uther suggests where implimented without the option of choosing if you wish to use it or not?
I am certain you would be the first to applaud that?
It is also about identifing stupid stuff, and not just doing something because some one else say so. Do you jump in a lake when some one out of the blue tells you so?

I'd be worried if a hit in the wing root always took the wing straight off. In reality things just don't work that way. The angle of deflection, angle of penetration, G pulled by target aircraft and the area of the root which is hit will all contribute to varying results. I doubt any test can replicate those factors precisely.

Same goes for fuel tank hits (at least with smaller caliber stuff). Many rounds will pass straight through a self sealing tank with nothing to show for your efforts.

Yeah! And that happens with ALL nose wheel equipped aircraft in game, NONE of which, in reality, had nose wheel steering. Active nosewheel steering is verified by steering during taxi without a working rudder.


And, as for all the realism talk in this thread, I believe if ground handling were *accurately* modeled in this game virtually no one would be able to get a taildragger off the ground successfully, let alone taxi it in a timely fashion. (This includes myself, since it is, for me anyway, such a by-the-butt thing ... lol)


(Been flying taildraggers since 1975.)

Dunno.. it seems plenty of tail draggers got off the ground during WWII with the real ground.

Some play the game for 30 mins of glory pr day. Some play the game to boost there epeen by points, and then some like to be apart of something bigger and play online campaigns. Each of these requires there settings to fufill the goal for today.

Im one of those who flyes away from a black smoker to save ammo and with the Accept that the enemy is out of action and can do what he flew out to do.

Im also one of those who take alot of pride landing each aircraft no matter the damedge, the harder the return flight is and the landing, the more thrill i get. There is tons of great air warriors out there, just look at KB`s around, but for me the greatest guy is the one who will do anything to make sure the planes comes home. Maby he dont get 30 kills, he get 5, but he lands the plane every time :)

I would love mechanical failures, guns jammed. The papers no one realy cares about is the missions reports. try to look at them and se the ammount of planes that returned because of mechanical failures. Even bag then they had the "monday" cars. There was planes that people refused to fly because the broke down all the time. Those old enough know what i talk about, some car for someone you know just keep breaking down, a "monday" car.

I also understand why the 30 mins a day pilots would hate this. Maby BOB will take this in. Since there is a awsome damedge model for components get shot to bits, maby thgere will be a fetiuqe meter for components so if you fly non stop for 4 hours wihout a 5 min maintence components will start to wear out.

4.10 have made some changes, some good some bad, but the deeper the simulatet stress factor for planes get into the game, the more the good pilots will have a chanse to stick out. It take 15 mins to learn a noob to take off and hit something. It take a month before he can land a heawy damedged plane...

Ltbear

You man you wanna fly the sh...y machines that were build at germany and japan at the very end of the war?
Feel the emotion of having you FW-190 sabotaged by the slave laborers and find that out in a dogfight?

As long as it is an option and anyone can choose otherwise, why not?
Option is the name of the game, IMHO.;)

The inclusion of flaps (15-20 seconds) Bf-109


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMjh...layer_embedded

- the first line of the realism list, Its okay but I don't think its going to be possible

- the second line, okay I'll take it because I don't always fly realism on oil pressure

- Third line, I will really accept it, nice idea one take offs

- fourth line, no way, It will make many people upset with this feature

- Fifth line, no way, if it really happen, I would boycott this idea

I don't think all five is fair I only agree to three of them.

To my Choice, When one plane crashes or crash lands, the destruction of the plane and its peices should still be visable and the plane is remaining but if its on Fire, it stays on fire in till it explodes but AA guns and destroyed vehicles should be still on Fire after being blowen up.

Oktoberfest, I'm on Swiss' side, it would take more than one MK 108 round to knock out the plane's wing off.

Some valid points, let's add a few more just for fun.

Engines that don't run forever and a day at full RPM whilst damaged. Engine modelling seems very forgiving compared to other sims I've played.

Higher chance of faulty munitions and sub-standard fuel/engine quality for late war axis fighters.

Field modded (bored out, tuned, etc) engines for both sides.

Default application to add kill markings to a skin 8)

I'll leave it at that.

Check the ammo mix for Mk108. Not every shell is MG. Worse even, MG shell is not the same trajectory as I shell. This makes it -possible- to hit consistently with only one shell type. The real I shell would only explode when immersed in liquid too, otherwise it was a low muzzle velocity solid shot.

I could see the online battles with Side X = Airplane High Fail Reliability Losers conditions. How many on the loser side, how many on the other?

Couldn't reliability be well enough simulated by reduced planes on the map? The failed planes being the ones not there rather than wasting a player's limited flight time? Besides, this is possible already and sometimes done already.

Historic high chance of unreliable before even takeoff planes, read about the US Marines at Henderson Airfield in 1942. Not just engines that might and did quit during or right after takeoff but some gauges, lights, etc, not working from start up and still the plane went on to fight, or at least try.

Is it even possible for IL-2 to have planes that start with random minor faults? How about engine unable to make full power? Consider that new serial production planes vary 5% in the same line, as told by Oleg many times, then how about the larger variation of used planes? Minus up to 10% for game? Perhaps someone could find themselves in Spitfire JL-165 when they thought they picked the sure winner?

Well IMO it is bad enough spending 10-25 minutes flying to a target or patrol point only to be taken out by flak or shot down by some unseen bandit.. The last thing I need in my limited time flight sim experience is one more twist to waste my time.. no thanks.. If it ever gets here I'd prefer it be something that is optional... As it is now you can still get malfunctions.. you just need a catalyst.. like flak or fire .. That is enough random stuff for me..

I have to agrre with Bearcat.

One thing I have noticed is that as the "realism" and difficulty of the sim increases, the number of players I see online decreases in direct proportion.

All of these new difficulty/reality/harder is better "improvements" need to be optional. That way all players are better served.

Could you take it if your plane made a random -up to- 5% or 10% less power than best condition?

Not for offline play no. Not when you are facing AI that get more out of there planes that you will ever.

If you want "realism" keep it to online play or as some say make it optional.

LOL, but if the AI got the engines with wear then it would be good!

As all realism options, there would have to be a toggle. I would not mind it offline as the AI don't pwn me except at night, but I don't fly at night!

You see the difference between engine great and then just quits and engine with wear which was more normal than everybody with new just broken in engine every time they sortie? Even Chuck Yeager didn't have a new engine every time up!

It is unrealistic to break the wing with a single Mk108 hit, i know. But at least, there should be a permanent damage on the plane.

Well how about whjen you intercept some enemy bombers, you already see damged on there planes why isn't that in 4.10 ? It should be in 4.12

Mk108 Incendiary shells don't make huge damage unless they ignite something. They do make nice big orange fire balls.

Record an in-game track with shots and hits then watch it with config file Arcade=1. Explosive shell hits make shrapnel arrows. Incendiary hits do not. The explosions look different as well.

Mk108 Mine Grenade shell can break a wing if it hits right.

Really?

You want more disintegrating airplanes?

I've seen this year after year but I want to know why everyone thinks that the cannon shell will hit with the best possible impact all the time? If I'm not mistaken it's more than possible that the shell will detonate late and cause some, but not catastrophic, damage to the target aircraft. It should be utterly devastating with the right hit (i.e. shell detonates perfectly in the middle of the wing or fuselage at the right moment) but that not every hit is a guaranteed killer.

I know the frustration sometimes... you hit with the MK108 and you see a little fuel leak and some damage. But then the second hit destroys the plane utterly or destroys every system and makes it impossible to fly. It seems to do the job very well.. Except maybe in high lag/high packetloss environments online.

Didn't Germans themselves state somewhere that 1 hit from Mk108 usually brought down anything single engined and most likely twins too? Three Mk108 hits were on average needed for a viermot. Anyone help me with a link?

Frankly, it is indeed hard to achieve this in IL-2 unless you are hair-splittingly (literally!) pedantic at where you hit your enemy. Which I doubt German pilots in 43-45 were. They were more than happy already to hit their targets.

Not to give wrong impression - Mk 108s are fine IMO. It's the utterly buggy and rudimentary damage modelling that's the culprit. Some planes for example don't even have fuel tanks modelled, other ones start burning at wrong places (you're hitting left wing fuel tank and right one starts burning...), next - the tin-foil skin acts like a superb anti-7,62mm and splinter armour (try killing a Zeke/Nate/Oscar... pilot through fuselage with LMG...), you can't hit and explode oxygen bottles, ammo storages...

Damage modelling would really need extensive fixing and upgrading. But then again - it would probably only open yet another can of worms and we all know why.

Ever played EAW?

.
Now we have enforced realism for bombers,lets have some for the fighters as well:
You fly 45 minutes,and find your guns have jammed when you need them. -bombers have guns too, and bombs.
You are 100 KM's over the lines,when your oil pressure drops to zero,and your engine quits. - Bombers ahve engines too.
You take off,and your engine quits. - same as above
You get to high alt,then without warning your oxygen supply fails,and you die of ashyxiation. - same as above
Get rid of the refly button in dogfight servers.You die,or bail out,you have to leave the server and come back in,after losing all your precious points. - thsi can be server side enforced
Sounds fair to me,after all,we are after realism.[/QUOTE]


Everithing you point out sounds good but tis not for fighters only its for every plane ingame.

Maybe they can simulate the failure rates experienced by the United States aircraft Industry?

If we look at the US Aviation industry, 1 in every 182 airframes built from January to October 1943 was a total write off and destroyed in crashes during Ferrying.

We can use today's aviation accident statistics to get a ballpark idea of the number of emergency landings. According to the FAA accident data base, you have ~98% of a making a daylight emergency landing without injury or major damage.

That puts the ballpark figure for emergency landings in the US Aviation industry at 14100 incidents or about 17% of the aircraft produced had an issue which forced termination of the flight in the first few hours of operation.

http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t206.htm

As a base, the average accident rate is about 14% on the initial flight for a new aircraft and 5% on the second flight.

Given the frantic pace of wartime production I would expect that rate to be somewhat higher.

Of course that is just raw data before the newly manufactured aircraft is delivered. Airplanes are complicated machines and it is perfectly normal to have issues in the first few hours of operation.

All Air Forces flew acceptance flights to test new aircraft before accepting them.

Just some facts for you guys to digest! Have fun! :)

Did anyone take their planes directly from factory to combat?

BTW Crumpp, do you check PM's?

Not as a matter of policy...

Not for a while, did I miss one?

I noticed that too.... especially in coops.. but then again.. this sim is getting long in the tooth.. and the time between patches etc seems to be getting longer and longer.. I know they do this for free.. and I am grateful .. but it would be nice if they took what they had and put it in 4.11 and put the rest in 4.12.. or whatever it will be..

I do this for fun.. I have far less time to do this than I did when I started it.. and between the killer AI (for the other side .. my AI is dumb as a post 80% of the time.. ) and the killer flak.. sometimes the fun just vanishes ..

I would think you are absolutely right Bearcat. It would not be fun if I played the game for 30 minutes and then when the action starts some random failure ends it for me. That is just stupid IMHO.

What is funny is that people want realism but don't seem to understand that all of these games are inherently unrealistic in their basic game play. Pilots don't fly around at even maximum continuous settings much less WEP. That seems to be the norm however when playing. They did not have the fuel to that for one thing nor would their engines handle it.

The most realistic thing they could do to simulate WWII air combat would be to rework the RPM/manifold pressure settings to make maximum continuous the 100% setting and reset the overheat times to correspond to the time allowed for operation above 100% output. Anything setting above maximum continuous is a short duration sprint setting and is stressing the engine.

Make the fuel consumption values where it was important to keep your aircraft at cruise settings would also help.

LOL dude this was epic xD

Not as a matter of policy, but I believe that the Germans and Japanese sometimes flew their planes directly off the assembly lines into combat late in the war (i.e., late 1944 on). I read someplace that the average life expectancy of a late war Bf-109 airframe was something less than 10 hours due to poor manufacturing standards, rookie pilots, pilot fatigue and enemy action. For the Japanese, some planes were basically designed to be used once, as kamikazes, which precluded acceptance testing.

On the allied side, during the darkest days of the Nazi invasion from summer of 1941 to early 1942, I believe that the Soviets sometimes flew their planes directly off the assembly lines. I know that during the defense of Leningrad tanks were sometimes driven unpainted from the assembly line to the front lines, and I think that some aircraft produced in Leningrad factories were also pressed into service directly from the factory.