Modelling engine wear and WEP limitations

[Blackdog_kt]

Actually this proposed feature has nothing to with crippling the RAF aircraft, because
a) it would apply to all aircraft and
b) it would be user-selectable...don't like it, don't use it (or fly on another server)

What i'm trying to say is, the topic of this post is how could we possibly simulate manufacturing tolerances and airframe wear and tear in the future, not some kind of a conspiracy theory.

I could just as easily embark on a detailed explanation about how the simplified engine management of IL2:1946 tended to favor the aircraft with the bigger/more powerful engines or in some cases completely reversed the workload advantage/disadvantage to the opposite of what it was historically but i have no interest in derailing this thread just to get in an argument, i like the proposed feature and i'd like to do my part to keep the thread relevant.

I think a lot of the resistance displayed in such topics is people fearing their preferred gameplay style will be rendered obsolete and the pool of like-minded players to fly with will decrease due to many others moving on to a more refined and complex style, so they try to limit the potential of such new ideas taking root. In all honesty however, we can't expect to hold back everyone who prefers a different playstyle, otherwise we'd all be forced to fly on no-cockpit servers in order not to upset the more arcade-minded players: it's impossible to achieve plain and simple, people will fly and play the way they want to play.

Since this is supposed to be a simulation game, a large enough amount of people will gravitate towards increased complexity if it's provided and if we have the proper interface to use it. As long as such changes are not forced on everyone else and are user-selectable, i'm not just ok with it it but i eagerly anticipate it as well.

As long as people can turn off the features they don't like, there's no justification to limit these features (provided they can be reasonably implemented) and deprive another part of the community of their enjoyment.

[king1hw]

In multi-player mode I think it is not a good Idea and to go and neuter all planes is stupid. I for one am all about historical accuracy and not to have a 109 e4 and 12lb spit and hurricane is also stupid. Does that mean that all fighters allied and axis should have access to better fuel ratings YES.

So this bickering back and forth on what the game should have how about the team focus on the MP sound issue and make it better. To argue this when the game is having so many problems online is STUPID. I for one do not agree with and have never agreed with Kurfhurst(Docs all dated Dec. 1939) There is no logic behind the air marshal not allowing 100octane at all fighter bases is ludicrous and to not allow them to take the merlins to 12lbs is just does not make sense maybe that's why the allied won the war lol thank god.

To get the game correct adding damage to engine after 20 minutes engaged boost for all aircrafts would take care of the non flyer. I said 20 because it is documented in pilots notes of them running longer. The damage could effect a rearm and repair mode if we had it in the game to force pilots not to refly like junkies. Again make it server side and those that want to fly historical sim will flock to those servers.

[Kurfürst]

Oh look, I guess some poor thing got a ticket to the BANamas..!

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by king1hw

I saw this with il2 1946. No body wanted to put on there server the 25lb spit because it was to good and now in CoD we cant use the spit MKIIa on anyones server

The day I made my mind on the "Spit" 25lb was when I was trying to shake that nasty thing climbing at 500kph indicated speed from deck to 5K on a 262.... That thing was actually slowly gaining on me !

You can say what you want but still can't call a Spit what is not a spit. You might one day understand why nobody wanted to see it in game .. same thing for what you call today an MkIIa