4.11 realism

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Wutz

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.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by robtek

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?

Mankinds greatest advantage was and is to adapt to new circumstances and use them at the best.

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?

[Ace1staller]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

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.

- 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.

[Ace1staller]

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.

[pupo162]

.
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.

[Crumpp]

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.

Undercarriage tests followed before the aircraft was lowered onto its wheels and rolled out of the final assembly hall. It was then led to the firing stand to test its weapons and also for centering the compass on the rotable compass adjustment stand. After fueling, and a last check of all functions, the engine was subjected to a test run, where after the Bf-109 stood ready for a works flight. In the initial test flight it was climbed to 8,000m (26,250ft), the aircraft and the engine was thoroughly checked out and performance data compared with that required. In the event that faults were found, these would be recorded and eliminated after the landing. This was then followed by a works test flight in which it could be established how many of the faults had been rectified. Where no further faults were determined on this flight, the aircraft was then release for acceptance by the BAL. In Regensbug, several pilots (Obermeier, Lohmann and others) were authorized by the RLM to carry out Bf 109 acceptance flights for the BAL. After their acceptance by the BAL, the aircraft were then taken over by the Luftwaffe.

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

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

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?

[Crumpp]

Did anyone take their planes directly from factory to combat?

Not as a matter of policy...

BTW Crumpp, do you check PM's?

Not for a while, did I miss one?

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Did anyone take their planes directly from factory to combat?

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.

[MaxGunz]

In Russia between factory and front was not a short trip. Those tanks might have gotten painted while refueling, maintenance and whatever rest stops the crew had. Making the trip to the front becomes the break-in. Same for planes, the factories were not at the front so no direct to combat phase. Shuttle pilot flies the plane from factory, not fighter pilot.

Some people make websites and others make posts to push agendas. Late war Germany didn't have fuel to get all their planes flying, new or old.

What -data- to base reliability figures on? Sometimes it is there for some countries and mostly it is not. Loss figures alone, combat or non-combat don't cover it as they factor in weather, training and fatigue with mechanical reliability.
Yet crash site examinations were on occasion enough to determine design flaws which is why there was so much flap over crash site souvenir collectors.

I would think that pilot-wise, having to fly your mission in some other plane than you expected because your regular planes are grounded due to investigation or repairs/upgrade would be more common that to be the 1 in many-many whose wings fell off. That would even provide some variation to the game.