Friday 2010-02-25 Development update:Interview by Grégory Lemasson/Discussion Thread

[zapatista]

Oleg,

thanks for the update and interview

2 questions:

1) the re-fueling and re-arming issue:

A) this has been extensively discussed in the last few years at ubi forums, simhq, and the other main flightsim forums. the conclusion was that historical evidence presented confirmed it is possible, and was done in real life, to re-arm and re-fuel a spitfire or hurricane in under 15 min during the busiest periods of BoB (iirc) when every aircraft counted and they had to relaunch aircraft as fast as possible on certain days !

i even still have the historical video footage that shows the whole rearming procedure for the spitfire or hurricane (one was easier then the other, iirc the hurricane was significantly faster then the spitfire because the ammo boxes in the wings were more accessible). with that footage you can time exactly how long it takes, it was either 9 or 11 minutes, using the normally available ground crews for that situation (they had a team of 2 men working on each wing, so 4 ground crew per aircraft)

note: historically you didnt usually have 15 aircraft all land together for quick refuel and rearm, but it was aircraft coming in solo or in little groups of 2 and 3. when a whole squadron came back from a mission and were debriefed, aircraft made ready for next flight etc, this would take much longer obviously, but that is entirely different.

if you have any doubts about this, then let us present some of those facts to you so it can be implemented, it makes a BIG difference in coops and online play, even for stand alone missions in solo play. obviously if you would land a plane at an airfield that has been extensively damaged by a recent enemy bombing raid, the airfield would be disorganised and crews and supplies might be damaged or destroyed, but that should not determine how quickly this can happen at a normal airfield. maybe add a pilot command to airfield "stand by crews for refueling and rearming", so that once landed and taxi to the pit spot, it can be done in historical time. if we dont pre warn the airfield, and it is chaos on the ground, maybe it can take longer.

in the options for re-arming refueling we also need a setting to choose for ex
a) realistic refuel rearm = 15 min
b) accelerated refuel and rearm = 3 min
etc..

B) if landing a damaged aircraft, or one that needs to be refueled or rearmed, we also need an option of "choose other available aircraft at airfield", with a small delay before we can start the new aircraft (equal to the time needed to walk/run to the next aircraft, and not have the instant refly we have now when selecting an aircraft for ex)


2) for the new complex engine management, will we get messages of the type of problem encountered ? eg:
- icing of wings/windscreen
- low oxygen for pilot
- "right wing ammo box exploded" etc ?

if you physically sit in a real aircraft, you get a lot of clue's physically with your body senses about what it happening to the pilot and aircraft, sitting behind a pc monitor we dont experience this. for ex low on oxygen an experienced pilot notices before blacking out and does something about it, similar with vibration of flaps are not retracted (or gear) etc.. the game software needs to SIMULATE this pilot awareness, if need be with some basic msg's flashing on screen (as an on/off option in preferences, so the fake-real people who want to fly deaf dumb and blind can do so to)

please consider

[MikkOwl]

if you physically sit in a real aircraft, you get a lot of clue's physically with your body senses about what it happening to the pilot and aircraft, sitting behind a pc monitor we dont experience this. for ex low on oxygen an experienced pilot notices before blacking out and does something about it, similar with vibration of flaps are not retracted (or gear) etc..

the game software needs to SIMULATE this pilot awareness, if need be with some basic msg's flashing on screen (as an on/off option in preferences, so the fake-real people who want to fly deaf dumb and blind can do so to)

Many if not most systems, including all engine related, give no special clues to the pilot if in the real aircraft. Possibly some vibrations from something being unbalanced being the exception. Otherwise, only what you hear and see, which we can do quite well these days. If the monitors are too small and low resolution, and the sound quality is poor without detailed sound differences that should be present when an engine is acting strange, then, yes, something additional is needed.

But I think the sounds will be great, graphics great, systems simulated accurately and with the instruments finally working properly, there's no need for me to have any helmet projected display handicap to understand that something is wrong.

Having options for helmet mounted display projecting system status is is OK to have as an option, and I don't think it takes any development time away.

EDIT: in the example of the low oxygen, there's other more creative ways to give clues to that something isn't right (slightly blurred vision, more suseptible to blackouts, blacking out even when flying straight, a bit sluggish controls, some head-sway when moving around with headtracking). Imagine a drunk person - they often have such bad judgement that they cannot even understand that it is they who are the problem when trying to do something requiring accurate control, instead they can think something is wrong with the system.

Wing ammo box exploded: Just what kind of special thing does a pilot get that make is blind and deaf in comparison? Surely some loud explosion, major wing damage, severely affected handling (if the wing is still even attached). We have everything we need to figure it out similar to a real pilot.

Icing: This is already described. Check the temperature gauge, look at the ice on the windows (visually) and on the wings, and note how it affects the engine performance. If it also affects handling like it should, then you'll notice this as well when moving the stick around and seeing how the aircraft behaves in contrast to how it normally should.

Landing gear vibrations: Vibrations are trickier. It can be seen visually if the gears are out as the plane just doesn't fly without vibration (shaking the camera and the horizon a bit). Also, force feedback makes a big (trust me) difference here, but not everyone has such hardware. I think if the sound engine was more realistic, there would be some other sounds as well in those old planes, maybe rattles, squeeks etc.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

Many if not most systems, including all engine related, give no special clues to the pilot if in the real aircraft.

Icing: This is already described. Check the temperature gauge, look at the ice on the windows (visually) and on the wings, and note how it affects the engine performance.

When we're talking about carburetor icing the diagostic would be reduction in Manifold Pressure with a constant speed prop ( reduction in RPM with a fixed or manual pitch prop) and eventually a rough runing engine leading to total failure in extreme cases.

I know atmospheric modeling will deal with temp, but will we be able to find relative humidity in BoB?

Most of avoiding things like carburetor icing comes down to preventive actions, knowing the conditions and using good airmanship so you don't get the problem. The instruments required to diagnose the problem will be modeled, but diagnosing the problem will be the hard bit (as in real life)!

Although unlikely, I wonder if fuel injected motors like the German planes will have similar problems with induction icing?
Cheers!

[Romanator21]

Originally Posted by zapatista

]for ex low on oxygen an experienced pilot notices before blacking out and does something about it...

Not true. You would not even notice that you were losing oxygen until it became far too late. I don't want to get into all the details right now, but do a quick search on hypoxia for more.

Besides the gauges for oxygen pressure and oxygen quantity, the pilot had to check his mask, and squeezed the tubing to make sure there was pressure and that no ice was forming.

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Not true. You would not even notice that you were losing oxygen until it became far too late. I don't want to get into all the details right now, but do a quick search on hypoxia for more.

Besides the gauges for oxygen pressure and oxygen quantity, the pilot had to check his mask, and squeezed the tubing to make sure there was pressure and that no ice was forming.

Then the task is to come up with a system that simulates SOME of the symptoms of it, in the same similar sneaky way. Then it is up to the observant virtual pilot to notice these symptoms before it is too late.

Seems like awesome fun. In that case, the 'already too late' symptom should come as a shock. Like a sudden blackout without any chance of acting on it (as the real pilot might simply be too affected by hypoxia to notice some of the more obvious-to-others signs, so they should not be blatantly presented to the virtual pilot to make an accurate judgement either).

If judgement especially is affected, what would be appropriate? Clicking the transmit button sporadically? Accidental discharge of weapons? Or wait, get this, having a friendly plane (spitfire for example) looks like a Nazi plane. Creeping at first, seeing swastika markings, but the shape yet looks like a spitfire. But then, even the shape. Other symptoms.. Perhaps instruments showing wrong numbers (reading north as south for example).

[Romanator21]

Making symptoms will surely be a challenge. It would have to depend on altitude firstly, but to make a creeping loss of consciousness is impossible unless our computers gradually injected carbon monoxide into the room.

For the purposes of a game, and to avoid possible lawsuits, it might be ok to just gradually dampen movement of the head and stick. This will be less noticeable during cruise when the inputs are more relaxed (but imagine being bounced at this point ). At some point the screen could go black, but by then there would be nothing you could do to wake up unless your plane was diving into thicker air. Whether or not you woke up before hitting the ground would also depend on many factors, but your chances are slim.

[MikkOwl]

But I want my nazi spitfires!

Seriously, imagine (if playing without icons, which is the way it should be) your wingman suddenly engaging you, while talking on the radio that he's on the enemy's six but lost sight of you. Could happen during an engagement with real enemies. Talk about realistic simulation! And you're like "That's me you're firing at! You fool! Stop!", and he's like "No no, it's a 109". Then you go "Check your oxygen right now!".

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

But I want my nazi spitfires!

Seriously, imagine (if playing without icons, which is the way it should be) your wingman suddenly engaging you, while talking on the radio that he's on the enemy's six but lost sight of you. Could happen during an engagement with real enemies. Talk about realistic simulation! And you're like "That's me you're firing at! You fool! Stop!", and he's like "No no, it's a 109". Then you go "Check your oxygen right now!".

Oxygen deprivation isn't necessary to make this authentic. Consider the 'Battle of Barking Creek': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barking_Creek
Sadly, inexperience combined with 'knowing' what you are looking at is quite sufficient to bring about this sort of cock-up. Almost makes me feel less guilty about doing much the same thing on UKDed2. Almost...

[MikkOwl]

That is true, and yep, I am familiar with that tragedy. But some (many) of us know to not open fire unless the enemy is positively identified. If unsure, don't shoot. But we too could get affected when oxygen deprived.

My stats say I have killed one friendly aircraft online, but since I have only shot down two enemy fighters, the friendly must have been some freak random accident. Maybe a spawn collision or hit by a stray mk 108 30mm shell. Even the rear gunner could have hit a friendly far away that was already going down by mistake when spraying. The rules of FPS games, and Armed Assault, are like a reflex to me. Don't shoot until sure.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Not true. You would not even notice that you were losing oxygen until it became far too late.

complete bollocks !

your saying there that there is only 2 states possible for a ww2 pilot in relation to oxygen supply
a) perfectly normal and healthy
b) "far to late" (presumably instant near death state, or death itself)

which is obviously total nonsense

even holding your breath for 60 sec is possible (ie instant no further new oxygen), so even if the oxygen tube is shot out or the system has a major leak (while breathing normally), it would take btw 30 and 90 sec or (even longer) for the pilot to be completely disabled, it is NOT instant. and in a gradual reduction of oxygen in a non pressurized aircraft climbing this would take place over a number of minutes, the pilot gradually getting a bit disoriented, trouble concentrating on his tasks, be more clumsy with controls and switches (fine motor control), getting a headache etc. blurring of vision and then blacking out is really the final phase.

my point is this:
1) in both those situations in real life you would get some physical indications from your surrounding, and the physical senses of your body. a trained and experienced pilot would also recognize those earlier then joe average from the street.
2) sitting behind a monitor in your living room is a very dulled experience compared to being in the cockpit and experiencing it, are you really going to argue that point ?

so to SIMULATE the experience of the pilot it would be helpfull to get some additional clues, and this can take many forms and is really what the discussion should be about
1) simple "oxygen status" msg flash on screen ?
2) having the oxygen dial "light up brighter" so that with an initial glance at your instruments you get increased awareness of the important one
3) etc ... etc... many ways to do it

take another example, wasnt the fuel tank right in front of the pilot in some of those aircraft ? damage to the tank could leak fuel into the cockpit, the pilot feels it on his face, sees the liquid maybe, it stings his eyes, he smells the fuel etc... and no not all those events meant that the pilot was instantly on fire either, so it is not about modeling the flames as an on/off status.
- so how do you "model" the pilot smelling the fuel in the cockpit ? if there was lots of fuel splashing about in the cockpit onto the pilot, a strong smell of fuel, and the pilot was in a dodgy dogfight situation, he might well decide to bail out rather then wait for the next spark to set him on fire. even if he stayed in the pit and flew on, he would make sure his goggles were on and he was ready to quickly bail out

again, some kind of visual msg or other feedback is needed to get that sensory information and SIMULATE the information the real pilot would have at that time, sitting behind your monitor just doesnt provide it.