A good idea on the performance issues

[Redroach]

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

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Redroach

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

Clearly your in a lot of peoples ignore list redroach

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

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%.