Damage modeling: what exactly should be changed?

[Kling]

This thread is just an idea of mine.
If you find it inappropriate Snapper, pls lock it.

Well my list.
1.less radiator leaks (well this is just my idea of better gameplay. Currently almost every plane goes down due to radiator) might be realistic however.

2. Once oil/radiator leak is a fact i would like the temp rise to be slower, especially for oil leak. (Sorry Buzzaw couldt help bringing it up again). Lots of reports of planes crossing the channel with rising oil temp. In game we have 120secs before engine failure.


3. Damage to wings or fuselage should cause buffeting in the airframe in more or less the same way as engine damage.

4. Hurricanes more durable.

5. Spitfires less durable.

6. 109s I think are good except for constant radiator leak with every hit.

Well what do you guys think?!

Lets get some action on this quiet forum!
And please stay away from BLUE vs RED debates!!!

Best regards!

[No.54 Ghost (KL-G)]

i think they are working on the damage model.
i just want planes to go down faster so i can save ammo haha.
i think i said it earlier in another thread. the red screen that indicates you been hit would be nice to get rid off.

[-Sven-]

I think the oil/water leak should form the major cause of being shotdown. Luftwaffe pilots aimed for the oil radiator beneath the IL2-sturmovik for a reason, it took one hit and then you could leave the plane alone. We might have different expectations when we try to shoot down a plane here in CoD. IRL pilots bailed out much sooner, because they were instructed to do so in certain occasions. In CoD it should be harder to shoot down anyone just because we're not actually in the plane, but that should be obvious.

The damage model still has some weird imbalances. Hurricane's wings fall off like leaves from a tree, whereas the wings of a Spit stay attached after huge amounts of damage. The spitfire also seems fire-proof, little fires mean nothing; an informed pilot ignores these as a mere nuisance. Whereas the Hurricane and BF109 light up like a match and go down quickly once set alight, the latter being correct.

[Kling]

I think the oil/water leak should form the major cause of being shotdown. Luftwaffe pilots aimed for the oil radiator beneath the IL2-sturmovik for a reason, it took one hit and then you could leave the plane alone. We might have different expectations when we try to shoot down a plane here in CoD. IRL pilots bailed out much sooner, because they were instructed to do so in certain occasions. In CoD it should be harder to shoot down anyone just because we're not actually in the plane, but that should be obvious.

The damage model still has some weird imbalances. Hurricane's wings fall off like leaves from a tree, whereas the wings of a Spit stay attached after huge amounts of damage. The spitfire also seems fire-proof, little fires mean nothing; an informed pilot ignores these as a mere nuisance. Whereas the Hurricane and BF109 light up like a match and go down quickly once set alight, the latter being correct.

You might correct and im not saying im in anyvway right. But as i said there are other ways to bring down an aircraft than a hit oil system and radiator system. Problem is that in game it leads to seizure within 120 secs while IRL it could be 1min-15min maybe depending on size of damage. I have been over this before so i dont want to sound like an ass and repeat myself with a new thread about that very specific issue. Buzzaw explained that its a code thing and I respect that.

But how about cylinder damage making u lose lets say 15% of power for each cylinder damaged (the % number is just a suggestion). That would be one way to force people to break off combat and try to get home..

As complex as the game engine is, i still feel that you always crash for two reasons. 130secs after oil hit or radiator hit the engine is gone and ure in the water.

If we DREAM a little, what other types of additional damage would i like to see?

Slow oil leaks(+ long trail of thin grey smoke)
Slow radiator leaks
Damaged cylinders(loss of power) (+maybe some sporadic thin smoke trail???)
Constant speed unit hit.

Im not in any way saying that these are even doable. Im dreaming here...

Lets just play with the imagination. :)

[Continu0]

What makes the DM thrilling is the feeling "I can get my baby home as long as I handle it correctly". Which could mean:

- I have cylinder-damage? ok, let`s try to only fly with one magneto on...
- One of my 109`s radiators is broken? ok, let`s try to fly with low rpm, maybe on radiator is enough (afaik those two rads were seperate system, I could be wrong tough...)
- Fuel leak? ok, let`s pump it into the other wing... (110, bombers, etc.)


... some things already work, but there is space left... and I have the full confidence, that TF is going to fill that space:-)

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

What should be changed is where they find coding that is obviously flawed.

Anecdotal evidence from pilots is helpful, but not reliable. For example;

If everyone thinks the 109 wings are far too strong, and should be easier to damage, but the code for the 109 has a weak 109 wing, then the code should NOT be changed. It's clear that the pilot' opinions are wrong, or they're just not shooting properly.

If the 109 radiator was, in reality only 40cm wide, but the code has a hit box that is 200cm wide, then the code needs to be changed.
If the spitfire wing-root was metal, but the code has the same values as a wood wing root (Tiger moth?) then the code needs to be changed.

The code is the important thing here. If there are errors in the code (which it sounds like there are), that needs primary attention.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

If we DREAM a little, what other types of additional damage would i like to see?



Every single part modeled according to function and materials, with the known engineering tolerances (to wear, damage and temperature) of every component known, and included in the model.
Every type of ammunition modelled to known velocities, sizes and forces.
Every single part responsive to the specific amount of damage sustained for each type of round relative tot he application of force beign applied and the tolerances relevant to the particular operating environment at the time of impact *(temperature, pressure).
Every single part also responsive to the failure or damage to any other part ini its operating system, or an other potentially influencing operating system, according to real life probabilities.



Of course, the above is a dream. All of the above information would not be known for any of these aircraft, if even any aircraft built today.

What we have to do, is understand what aircraft parts are modeled, and how tolerant we can reasonably expect those parts to be relative to each other. I would only expect the model to represent either "undamaged" or "destroyed" for most parts, with a certain number of parts (larger parts) having a graduated scale, say "undamaged", "slightly damaged", "heavily damaged", and "destroyed".

Then for each part which has the graduated damage scale, it would also have an inverse operating scale that was weighted to favour the undamaged part, i.e.

Undamaged: 100% working
Slightly damaged: 50% working
Heavily Damaged: 25% working
Destroyed: 0% working

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

One thing I would like is a look at the collision model!

It is my suspicion/speculation that the game has some kind of calculation that tries to assign an "aggressor" to the collision. This "aggressor" blows up, whilst the other aircraft does not.

There are some videos online where Farber and I looked at this, as it plays out in game.
In addition, just now on ATAG I ran into the back of an inverted 109 flown by Taipan, because I failed to slow down fast enough. My Spitfire exploded, his 109 was unscathed. I suspect that the game thought I was deliberately trying to collide, at it assigned "aggressor" status to me,.

I admire the developers intention if this is the case. It's a good way to prevent people "ramming" just to get a kill, or to disable a better opponent out of frustration. However, the current system appears to have too many unintended consequences.

[Kling]

One thing I would like is a look at the collision model!

It is my suspicion/speculation that the game has some kind of calculation that tries to assign an "aggressor" to the collision. This "aggressor" blows up, whilst the other aircraft does not.

There are some videos online where Farber and I looked at this, as it plays out in game.
In addition, just now on ATAG I ran into the back of an inverted 109 flown by Taipan, because I failed to slow down fast enough. My Spitfire exploded, his 109 was unscathed. I suspect that the game thought I was deliberately trying to collide, at it assigned "aggressor" status to me,.

I admire the developers intention if this is the case. It's a good way to prevent people "ramming" just to get a kill, or to disable a better opponent out of frustration. However, the current system appears to have too many unintended consequences.

All good suggestions!

Two nights ago i discovered a 109 just above ca 100 yards away. He didnt know I was there as he was chasing my wingman. I pulled my nose up but he was too close for my convergence but i fired anyway and he did all these fancy manouvers. The end result was that i was too fast and didnt know where to go and in the end ended up colliding with him. My Spit exloded and his 109 lost its elevators.

So your thought might be correct.

[LG1.Klein]

It would be nice for the 110 to be tough again. It went from being a veritable bullet sponge to first burst rads hit, oil leak, and engine magnetos knocked out. I'm fine with a healthy balance of the two. A while back it was a bit ridiculous to just wait for the Spit/Hurri to run out of ammo as you ran from home but now I might as well be made of paper mache.

[nacy]

Damage modeling in Cliffs Of Dover

dmd
fmd
emd

version no Team-Fusion.
version original Cliffs Of Dover.

2980

[Royraiden]

Damage modeling in Cliffs Of Dover

dmd
fmd
emd

version no Team-Fusion.
version original Cliffs Of Dover.

2980

What?

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

What?

He is proving the original Flight and Damage models.

Perhaps so people can open them and try to work out what is contained within.
Perhaps to suggest we revert back to them?
Perhaps to allow people to confirm if their "feelings" about the comparisons stack up with what is actually in the code

Or perhaps for some other reason?

[nacy]

file SFS in Cliffs Of Dover. Open with (kegetys.dll) http://www.kegetys.fi/ SFS mod tool v1.1 for IL-2 Sturmovik Cliffs of Dover

Damage modeling in Cliffs Of Dover

file: dmd

Or perhaps for some other reason? wrong

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

wrong!!!!

Incidentally, how can a question be "wrong", unless it's an answer to another question asking what the correct question is?

Confused?
Not in the slightest.

I still have, however, no idea why the DM file was posted.

[nacy]

I still have, however, no idea why the DM file was posted.

(think) (bethink oneself)

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

(think) (bethink oneself)

Evidence of said "thinking" was amply provided with these, posted earlier;
Perhaps so people can open them and try to work out what is contained within.
Perhaps to suggest we revert back to them?
Perhaps to allow people to confirm if their "feelings" about the comparisons stack up with what is actually in the code

Having received no clear answer to these questions, I am now prompted (all but commanded) to "think"?

However, who am I to judge your motivations? I can but guess and speculate my dear fellow. 'twould be presumptuous, nay, rude for one such as myself to probe the mind of a fellow so gracious as yourself. You, Sir, are one most humorous and entertaining chap!

[ATAG_Snapper]

I hope Team Fusion stick to their strict requirement of solid documentation before they begin changing anything. For those of us who were around when the MG/1C devs started messing around with FM's and DM's, the sim went downhill with engines overheating at even conservative settings and not even coming close to spec horsepower even when not blowing up. On top of this there were Bugtracker reports being lodged for these same aircraft to be made even less stable than they are now, as well as reducing roll rates at specified speeds.

At a time when certain aircraft had to reduce throttle before engaging in combat, there were still more Bugtracker calls calling for these same aircraft to break apart if too much elevator were applied. It was beyond depressing, especially because each successive patch buggered these aircraft even more each time.

Finally, we have aircraft for both sides in which performances more closely approach the reality, and gameplay has never been better for both sides. I believe that 109's engines fail after just two minutes, yet OTOH last night a player on TA who flies both (he's learning Spits now) said that time can be extended to eight minutes if certain measures are taken immediately to conserve the engine. I know that flying Spitfires if my radiator is perforated, I only have about two minutes before the dreaded "oil gasket failure" notice appears, my windscreen gets obscured by oil, a horrendous grinding noise emanates from the engine, and my Spit abruptly turns into a glider.

Warjunkie got on my six o'clock Wed night and, like a noob, I hauled back on my stick too hard. No, my wings did not fall off my Spitfire. But I blacked out completely and my controls froze. Relaxing pressure on the stick and chopping throttle did nothing. Into the drink I went from approx 5,000 feet. Warjunkie saw the server message that "ATAG_Snapper flying a Spitfire 2a collided with terrain" and came on chat asking what happened. He hadn't fired a shot and I'm sure was relishing a good fight. So was I, until I goofed up. I could only sheepishly reply back on chat that "He frightened me badly so I ditched!"

The blackout/control freeze ups are commonly encountered by Spitfires in combat if a smidgeon too much pressure is exerted on the stick. Many Spits, including mine, have fallen to 109's due to frozen controls and lingering blackout that won't clear even with stick pressure relaxed and throttle cut. The Spitfires and Hurries have their vulnerabilities too -- such as shedding control surfaces, then wings, at precisely 430 mph IAS at any altitude. Many a 109 has been saved by that alone when evading Spits in a dive.

I point these out in the hopes that TF are not swayed by Reds wanting 109 climb rates diminished, cannon fire less destructive, Spits made more fragile, etc. From experience, it is no fun to install a patch that takes away from your ride, infinitely more so if that cut in performance or structural strength is based on opinion that is not documented. I wouldn't wish it on my opponents -- I've been there. OTOH, if there is documentation that shows that 109's could make it back across the channel (and I'm sure there is) with non-catastrophic coolant leaks, then I agree that should be fixed. If that means that a damaged 109 will fight on for ten minutes instead of two, rather than immediately breaking off the fight, then so be it. There are scoring changes that can address that to large degree ie. landed kills only that count for score.

Sorry for the wall of words. Many of us have been through the hell of MG/1C patches that made Clod less of a sim with each iteration. Team Fusion has reversed that trend, and I'd hate to see it go the other way -- for LW or RAF aircraft.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

From experience, it is no fun to install a patch that takes away from your ride, infinitely more so if that cut in performance or structural strength is based on opinion that is not documented..

I would add that, while it's not immediately "fun" if a patch makes your favorite aircraft less capable, if is fair to do this, if the justification for doing so it there.If the code is wrong, then the code needs to be fixed.

If, for some strange reason, the developers forgot to add a damage value to spitfire wings (which, judging from some comments it seems some believe might be the the case) then this needs to be rectified. If the spitfire wings become more fragile as a result then I think that's entirely justifiable.

Similarly, if it turns out the the developers made a typo in the code, and that the hit-box for the 109 is twice as large as the actual part, where as for all other aircraft it is represented close to 1:1, then that code also needs to be fixed. If that means the 109s are 50% less likely to suffer radiator damage, then that's entirely fair.

What I would NOT like to see, is for damage models to be arbitrarily changes based on the "experience" and anecdotes of the flying community. However, based on the TF efforts to date, I'm confident that this [accuracy] is their goal/ method.

[Catseye]

file SFS in Cliffs Of Dover. Open with (kegetys.dll) http://www.kegetys.fi/ SFS mod tool v1.1 for IL-2 Sturmovik Cliffs of Dover

Damage modeling in Cliffs Of Dover

file: dmd

Or perhaps for some other reason? wrong

Why don't you just give this part a rest and let TF carry on with their already extensive knowledge of the inner workings of the files system?

If you want to play around yourself in this area, you are probably wasting a lot of time as integration with what TF is accomplishing is probably not going to happen and therefore just an exercise in discovery for what purpose?

TF will not make any changes that are not documented as factual. Errors in the figures pertaining to damage modeling are certainly being evaluated which also includes damage locations and stresses necessary to create that damage. Hit boxes also.

The folks in TF who are working in this area are far more than online jockeys I can assure you of this!! So you can expect results that fall in line with reality as much as can be changed within CLOD. It will also require precise testing to ensure that results meet with TF expectations and not anecdotal or online pilot preferences/assumptions.

[ATAG_Snapper]

I would add that, while it's not immediately "fun" if a patch makes your favorite aircraft less capable, if is fair to do this, if the justification for doing so it there.If the code is wrong, then the code needs to be fixed.

If, for some strange reason, the developers forgot to add a damage value to spitfire wings (which, judging from some comments it seems some believe might be the the case) then this needs to be rectified. If the spitfire wings become more fragile as a result then I think that's entirely justifiable.

Similarly, if it turns out the the developers made a typo in the code, and that the hit-box for the 109 is twice as large as the actual part, where as for all other aircraft it is represented close to 1:1, then that code also needs to be fixed. If that means the 109s are 50% less likely to suffer radiator damage, then that's entirely fair.

What I would NOT like to see, is for damage models to be arbitrarily changes based on the "experience" and anecdotes of the flying community. However, based on the TF efforts to date, I'm confident that this [accuracy] is their goal/ method.

Phil, if you read my post carefully, that's what I was saying.

[Roblex]

4. Hurricanes more durable.

5. Spitfires less durable.

snip!




The damage model still has some weird imbalances. Hurricane's wings fall off like leaves from a tree, whereas the wings of a Spit stay attached after huge amounts of damage


The first two posts seem to contradict each other yet I can contradict both :D I lost half my hurricanes wing, i.e. from inboard of the aileron outwards!, yet I was able to keep flying and make a good landing. You can see the pictures in my WW2 blog linked below.



http://roblex56raf.livejournal.com/5124.html

2981

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

Honestly, DM modifications will never reach the expectations of the community. As soon as someone gets shot down, the DM mods will be *Bullcrap!* As soon as someone gets a kill, they will be the best modifications *ever!*

It seems as though most people expect that incendiary rounds or cannon rounds are supposed to have epic results 100% of the time, which I think are over the top expectations.

There are definitely some bugs with the DM, but "spit is too strong + frown face" is not a game bug.

In the mass of posts I've read about DM complaints, I don't think anyone has mentioned that you can't get a spitfire to catch on fire. I've tried with different fuel loads, ammo loadouts, and attack angles, and I've even tried with British incendiary rounds, but I haven't had any luck. And while I've also been able to catch a hurricane on fire, it seems as though I'm only igniting canvas, I'm not sure if you can actually ignite the fuel tank of Merlin engine planes.

I'd also love to see some changes to the rad leaks so they don't have the predictable 2 min self destruct timer associated with them.

[Catseye]

Catseye, if you read my post carefully, that's what I was saying.

Hi Snapper,
I saw that as I got further into the posts.

My response was a little different in that it is directed to Nacy posting about the SFS files and that getting into them serves no purpose as TF already have considerable knowldege in this area and the folks working in those files are sanctioned by TF and experienced.

Playing around with them outside TF's umberella will not accomplish much on behalf of TF so I am perplexed as to why Nacy would bring that up in a thread that was aimed at identifying interests in areas of the damage model that folks would like to see evaluated.

My understanding is that this thread was for input on damage model issues important to virtual pilots, not how to fix them.

Cats . . .

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

We are working on a revision to damage and weapons modelling.

Changes will be fact based.

[LG1.Farber]

This thread is just an idea of mine.
If you find it inappropriate Snapper, pls lock it.

Well my list.
1.less radiator leaks (well this is just my idea of better gameplay. Currently almost every plane goes down due to radiator) might be realistic however.

No, totally disagree.



2. Once oil/radiator leak is a fact i would like the temp rise to be slower, especially for oil leak. (Sorry Buzzaw couldt help bringing it up again). Lots of reports of planes crossing the channel with rising oil temp. In game we have 120secs before engine failure.

Again seems ok to me.



3. Damage to wings or fuselage should cause buffeting in the airframe in more or less the same way as engine damage.

Possibly. Perhaps this is where ball type ammo will shine.



4. Hurricanes more durable.

No... Why?



5. Spitfires less durable.

Yes. End the Supermarine Sturmovik.



6. 109s I think are good except for constant radiator leak with every hit.

Think about it, two rads in the wings, bigger target. The foe has wing mounted weapons....




If the 109 radiator was, in reality only 40cm wide, but the code has a hit box that is 200cm wide, then the code needs to be changed.
If the spitfire wing-root was metal, but the code has the same values as a wood wing root (Tiger moth?) then the code needs to be changed.


I stand corrected...




Well what do you guys think?!

Lets get some action on this quiet forum!
And please stay away from BLUE vs RED debates!!!

Best regards!

Maybe it is best to let sleeping dogs sleep.

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Hi Snapper,
I saw that as I got further into the posts.

My response was a little different in that it is directed to Nacy posting about the SFS files and that getting into them serves no purpose as TF already have considerable knowldege in this area and the folks working in those files are sanctioned by TF and experienced.

Playing around with them outside TF's umberella will not accomplish much on behalf of TF so I am perplexed as to why Nacy would bring that up in a thread that was aimed at identifying interests in areas of the damage model that folks would like to see evaluated.

My understanding is that this thread was for input on damage model issues important to virtual pilots, not how to fix them.

Cats . . .

Cats

I think Snapper mistook you for Philstyle, in much the same way he mistakes Hurricanes for BF109 and more recently, Blenheims for Ju-88's :)

However I totally agree with what you said in your posts.

~S~

[ATAG_Snapper]

Cats

I think Snapper mistook you for Philstyle, in much the same way he mistakes Hurricanes for BF109 and more recently, Blenheims for Ju-88's :)

However I totally agree with what you said in your posts.

~S~

Hahaha! You're right, as usual, Slippy. Apologies to both Cats and Philstyle. I was working from my tiny iPhone screen on the road -- the constant scrolling back and forth overwhelmed my brain cells.

Anyway, Buzzsaw's short and to the point response certainly answers my wordy one. :D

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Phil, if you read my post carefully, that's what I was saying.

oh. oops.
:salute:

[56RAF_klem]

We are working on a revision to damage and weapons modelling.

Changes will be fact based.

Can this include the sound effects please. Its probably a different area of the coding but I never hear when I receive a hit. I do hear the hits I make on the aircraft I am shooting at which is just as silly. Its an old chestnut but annoying when you look round and suddenly find you magically have no aileron.

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Can this include the sound effects please. Its probably a different area of the coding but I never hear when I receive a hit. I do hear the hits I make on the aircraft I am shooting at which is just as silly. Its an old chestnut but annoying when you look round and suddenly find you magically have no aileron.

This is a common problem when the in-game effects volume has been turned down. Its worth checking that the top slider in-game audio options is fully to the right, and make any required adjustments to the volume in the windows volume control. I do agree though, a permanent solution would be better.

[Kling]

Title changed...

[Catseye]

Cats

I think Snapper mistook you for Philstyle, in much the same way he mistakes Hurricanes for BF109 and more recently, Blenheims for Ju-88's :)

However I totally agree with what you said in your posts.

~S~

Ha ha!
I knew about the Blenheim identify crisis but perhaps we should take away his I-Phone?

[DUI]

What makes the DM thrilling is the feeling "I can get my baby home as long as I handle it correctly". Which could mean:
- I have cylinder-damage? ok, let`s try to only fly with one magneto on...
- One of my 109`s radiators is broken? ok, let`s try to fly with low rpm, maybe on radiator is enough (afaik those two rads were seperate system, I could be wrong tough...)
Yes, this one would be great!

[ATAG_NakedSquirrel]

It would also be nice if flaps would break or jam in high speed dives.

[56RAF_klem]

This is a common problem when the in-game effects volume has been turned down. Its worth checking that the top slider in-game audio options is fully to the right, and make any required adjustments to the volume in the windows volume control. I do agree though, a permanent solution would be better.

I already do that Slipstream :(

I think it did give me some hit sounds for a while but I don't get them now. I wonder if something changed in the patches?


I don't suppose anyone has a script for setting CoD sound level in the Mixer? I run a .vbs to start TS, JoyToKey, DXTweak and CoD etc, it would be nice to include something that would set my CoD volume to 40% of my Main Speaker slider setting.

[Kling]

Yes, this one would be great!

The 109F series was the first to have have this.radiator system. The 109E only had ONE system, meaning that if the left radiator was hit and started leaking, the right side would also be affected.
On the 109F and onwards you could use each side separately if one side was hit. Running on one system was was enough for continues engine power...so probably not enough for combat power for too long.

I also asked for this a while ago but Kurfurst corrected me and i think noone one these boards has the same knowledge about 109s as he does so i will take his reply for fact. ;)

[ATAG_Ribbs]

What makes the DM thrilling is the feeling "I can get my baby home as long as I handle it correctly". Which could mean:

- I have cylinder-damage? ok, let`s try to only fly with one magneto on...
- One of my 109`s radiators is broken? ok, let`s try to fly with low rpm, maybe on radiator is enough (afaik those two rads were seperate system, I could be wrong tough...)
- Fuel leak? ok, let`s pump it into the other wing... (110, bombers, etc.)


... some things already work, but there is space left... and I have the full confidence, that TF is going to fill that space:-)


I still believe that this post was the best so far! The thrill of trying to get my broken crate back across the pond is as real as it gets. Concentrate on making the overheating problem (coolant and oil)variable ..with engine management. Say you have the engine at idle and gliding... the over heating should be reduced (as long as your not out of coolant or oil). Also the fuel transfer for the 110s would be a nice feature to have working. Stuff like that would even out a lot of the complaints. And to tie it in with the scoring.. only give points to aircraft that can make it back and land. Good landing or crash landing ..as long as the pilot survives. Giving us more variables to control or prolong complete engine failure is whats needed.. no one is going to agree on a set time an engine will come to complete failure.

Good post Continu0 !

[Kling]

I still believe that this post was the best so far! The thrill of trying to get my broken crate back across the pond is as real as it gets. Concentrate on making the overheating problem (coolant and oil)variable ..with engine management. Say you have the engine at idle and gliding... the over heating should be reduced (as long as your not out of coolant or oil). Also the fuel transfer for the 110s would be a nice feature to have working. Stuff like that would even out a lot of the complaints. And to tie it in with the scoring.. only give points to aircraft that can make it back and land. Good landing or crash landing ..as long as the pilot survives. Giving us more variables to control or prolong complete engine failure is whats needed.. no one is going to agree on a set time an engine will come to complete failure.

Good post Continu0 !

+1 my point exactly!!!

[DGC338]

Can someone explain to me why you would fly on one magneto if you have cylinder damage. I just don't get it. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

I'm all for DM changes, I want realistic ones however.

[Major Tom]

It seems as though most people expect that incendiary rounds or cannon rounds are supposed to have epic results 100% of the time, which I think are over the top expectations. I think this stems from playing 1946 where cannon rounds completely shatter enemy aircraft 100% of the time. So they expect this as well in COD. I am not sure this happened in real life. Maybe once in awhile. IMHO I would think it did not happen at the levels it happens in 1946. I would think it would happen at those levels only with more modern cannons like you would find in today's aircraft, or maybe with an aircraft like the late model corsairs with the wings full of 20mm vulcans against fragile zeros. So I agree with your statement.

[Continu0]

Can someone explain to me why you would fly on one magneto if you have cylinder damage. I just don't get it. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

I'm all for DM changes, I want realistic ones however.

A squad mate once mentioned that this worked in some cases before the last official version. So I thought that might be accurate. I can`t back up with information.
However, I explained it to myself this way: The magnetos are for creating sparks in the engine, eg. to make the engine fire. So if you turn of one magneto, some cylinders should not fire, meaning that they cool down. This might prevent damage if the cylinders are overheated or damaged.

Don`t forget: I am poorly informed about that and have very little understanding of how engines work. Thats just the way I could imagine it would work. I just wrote it because you wanted to know how I came to this idea. As you, I am for realistic DM`s in the first place!

[Bounder!]

Think it's been mentioned already but big +1 to landing gear and flaps damage/jam/break when deployed at speed. Also big +1 to the collision model if it can be fixed.

When landing I get the feeling gear is a bit too strong and would buckle easier in RL. Currently we can do massive 50m kangaroo bounces off the runway that would surely break the a/c and the pilots back. It's not a big issue obviously but what do others think?

I'm not a fan of decreasing the speed the radiator bleeds after it's been hit and thus prolonging flight time after damage. In reality it was more of a rarity than the norm for pilots making it home from across the channel after taking radiator damage and this is reflected in the game currently. If you're fighting at the altitudes that the real fights happened at (15-20,000ft), it's perfectly doable currently to make it back after taking radiator damage if you're lucky and can deagress and head back asap. So I think increasing the time before the radiator bleeds dry and the engine packs up wouldn't be realistic. Also I believe people will just abuse the extra time afforded trying to score that extra kill before they go down - I leave my opponents when they start venting because the fight should be over and I know if he makes it home I will still get a registered kill on the server so I save my ammo, but most of the time even when they can make it back they don't bother, they swing around and chase after I've broken off, continuing the fight until they do down because they would rather try and get an extra kill than try to make it home, even when it's extremely likely they will make it back. So both for realism and gameplay I don't think it's a good idea.

[Broodwich]

I think this stems from playing 1946 where cannon rounds completely shatter enemy aircraft 100% of the time. So they expect this as well in COD. I am not sure this happened in real life. Maybe once in awhile. IMHO I would think it did not happen at the levels it happens in 1946. I would think it would happen at those levels only with more modern cannons like you would find in today's aircraft, or maybe with an aircraft like the late model corsairs with the wings full of 20mm vulcans against fragile zeros. So I agree with your statement.

It would be quite an improvement with incendiary rounds to light things on fire 10% of the time! Currently you can hose incendiary ammo through fuel leaking planes (and their leaking fuel!) without anything happening. If someone would give me proof that is historically accurate then I'll shut up, but that just does not seem possible

[Major Tom]

It would be quite an improvement with incendiary rounds to light things on fire 10% of the time! Currently you can hose incendiary ammo through fuel leaking planes (and their leaking fuel!) without anything happening. If someone would give me proof that is historically accurate then I'll shut up, but that just does not seem possibleI was speaking about cannon rounds in general. I also agree that incendiary rounds do not seem to produce many fires. However, I think fires in COD are only there to look "pretty" and do not actually damage anything beyond the area where the fire was produced, so maybe this wouldn't make much of a difference anyway.

[Catseye]

It would be quite an improvement with incendiary rounds to light things on fire 10% of the time! Currently you can hose incendiary ammo through fuel leaking planes (and their leaking fuel!) without anything happening. If someone would give me proof that is historically accurate then I'll shut up, but that just does not seem possible

Hi Broodwich,
You haven't mentioned which incendiary rounds you were using but I can tell you that they are under review.

For a test load Spit or Hurri with all White tracer and take on a heavy. :)


Catseye . . .

[Catseye]

I was speaking about cannon rounds in general. I also agree that incendiary rounds do not seem to produce many fires. However, I think fires in COD are only there to look "pretty" and do not actually damage anything beyond the area where the fire was produced, so maybe this wouldn't make much of a difference anyway.

Hi Major Tom,
The fires, depending from where they are, do indeed bring down the aircraft.

Catseye

[Major Tom]

Hi Major Tom,
The fires, depending from where they are, do indeed bring down the aircraft.

CatseyeI was under the impression they were kinda static by observing them. I'm glad to know that I'm wrong.

[Broodwich]

Hi Broodwich,
You haven't mentioned which incendiary rounds you were using but I can tell you that they are under review.

For a test load Spit or Hurri with all White tracer and take on a heavy. :)


Catseye . . .

Hey Catseye, I've been using the De Wilde rounds without the tracer, but I have tried the tracer incendiary rounds as well which seem to work better. Ive been shooting stukas primarily, and you hold the trigger down on them for a full load of ammo and not get any fire, even though they are leaking fuel, coolant, and oil everywhere. I have occasionally lit them from angles by firing the british tracer incendiary as well as the 109s MGs, but its still quite a bit off from what I would expect one of those rounds to do. I dont like taking tracer in my ammo though =\

[Catseye]

Hey Catseye, I've been using the De Wilde rounds without the tracer, but I have tried the tracer incendiary rounds as well which seem to work better. Ive been shooting stukas primarily, and you hold the trigger down on them for a full load of ammo and not get any fire, even though they are leaking fuel, coolant, and oil everywhere. I have occasionally lit them from angles by firing the british tracer incendiary as well as the 109s MGs, but its still quite a bit off from what I would expect one of those rounds to do. I dont like taking tracer in my ammo though =\

Hi Broodwich,
Hang in there on the DeWilde.
It is not modeled correctly at this time but is being worked on as part of the next patch.

I have it working to specs at the moment in testing but we are still working on the graphics link to the flash.

For now, the best results for incendiary are the white tracer if you can put up with lighting up the sky. As an alternative, try mixing ball, AP and white tracer in a ratio of 4 guns ball, 2 AP, 2 white tracer (tracer on the outer guns to view your convergence). Ball is very destructive in aircraft components and AP usually results in a PK and of course the white tracer lights up the fuel tanks.

The Stuka damage model is also being looked at along with all the others.

Plugging along.

Cheers,
Catseye

[Catseye]

I was under the impression they were kinda static by observing them. I'm glad to know that I'm wrong.

Some do appear to be static but if you load up with white incendiary, in most cases, you will notice that immediately you set the aircraft on fire it will break formation or nosedive.

Cheers,

[Broodwich]

Hi Broodwich,
Hang in there on the DeWilde.
It is not modeled correctly at this time but is being worked on as part of the next patch.

I have it working to specs at the moment in testing but we are still working on the graphics link to the flash.

For now, the best results for incendiary are the white tracer if you can put up with lighting up the sky. As an alternative, try mixing ball, AP and white tracer in a ratio of 4 guns ball, 2 AP, 2 white tracer (tracer on the outer guns to view your convergence). Ball is very destructive in aircraft components and AP usually results in a PK and of course the white tracer lights up the fuel tanks.

The Stuka damage model is also being looked at along with all the others.

Plugging along.

Cheers,
Catseye
:salute:

[Roblex]

Think it's been mentioned already but big +1 to landing gear and flaps damage/jam/break when deployed at speed.

Is this not already in? I am 95% sure that I have managed to jam my flaps before by forgetting to raise them. When I eventually worked out why I could not keep up with the squad and my trim was very nose high I found that I was now unable to raise the flaps.

[con3para]

YOU are spot on , i fly 109 most if not all the time , if i get hit , only a few times, i don't even make it back to France , i have to ditch , its always rad and oil leaks , not sure why as its my tail getting hit ,
were if i hit a spit he just keeps on flying , i just hope this Sim dose not turn out like il-2 1946 ...smoking spitfires doing high-G barrel rolls and YOYOs then shoot you down ...and keeps up with you when black smoke is poring out of the spits engine ...:devilish:

not good ...just drives you away from the sim or you go and fly a spitfire ...LOL

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

YOU are spot on , i fly 109 most if not all the time , if i get hit , only a few times, i don't even make it back to France , i have to ditch , its always rad and oil leaks , not sure why as its my tail getting hit ,


Cos spitfires are invincible, and 109s are made of balsa wood... it's in the code, I assure you.

[DUI]

just drives you away from the sim or you go and fly a spitfire ...
I think it is a wise idea to also try Spits and Hurricanes as a blue pilot - beside getting to know the strong and weak points of the red planes it surely quickly would lead to the result that red planes by far are not invincible.
But hey, I myself never fly red planes...

[ATAG_Snapper]

I think it is a wise idea to also try Spits and Hurricanes as a blue pilot - beside getting to know the strong and weak points of the red planes it surely quickly would lead to the result that red planes by far are not invincible.
But hey, I myself never fly red planes...


Wise words -- goes for both sides. :salute:

[Kling]

I myself fly the spit 50% of the time and the 109 the other 50%. I would say that the Spitfire is indeed pretty fragile but not as fragile as the hurricane (which I never flew online but I shot them down plenty of times)
The 109s are also very very fragile, but thats only the radiator. Look at it angry and the radiator breaks!

Saying that, when i fly the Spitfire attacking French airfields or just flying over the French fields, I take critical damage from flak within 2-3mins.
When I fly the 109 however, this has happened only twice to me since I started flying Clod and I hang over Hawkinge quite often in my 109.

Could be an issue with the flak guns though... ;)

[Mattias]

I myself fly the spit 50% of the time and the 109 the other 50%. I would say that the Spitfire is indeed pretty fragile but not as fragile as the hurricane (which I never flew online but I shot them down plenty of times)
The 109s are also very very fragile, but thats only the radiator. Look at it angry and the radiator breaks!

Saying that, when i fly the Spitfire attacking French airfields or just flying over the French fields, I take critical damage from flak within 2-3mins.
When I fly the 109 however, this has happened only twice to me since I started flying Clod and I hang over Hawkinge quite often in my 109.

Could be an issue with the flak guns though... ;)

:salute:

Most missions have much more AA in France than in Britain, so that could be one reason :D

Cheers/m

[56RAF_klem]

Probably raised already but has anyone looked at RL damage to 109s that get set on fire and then just go out and fly on? We seem to be missing structural damage and perhaps even.. ahem... pilot 'damage'.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

:salute:
Most missions have much more AA in France than in Britain, so that could be one reason :D
Cheers/m

My understanding is that this is historical, to an extent. The British left many/ most of their artillery/ flak pieces in France during the evacuation. It was some months before they had resupplied the south with guns.

[Kling]

:salute:

Most missions have much more AA in France than in Britain, so that could be one reason :D

Cheers/m

Sounds like a good reason ;)

[Bounder!]

Think it's been mentioned already but big +1 to landing gear and flaps damage/jam/break when deployed at speed.


Is this not already in? I am 95% sure that I have managed to jam my flaps before by forgetting to raise them. When I eventually worked out why I could not keep up with the squad and my trim was very nose high I found that I was now unable to raise the flaps.

I double checked tonight and confirmed with a mate and we find you can lower flaps at high speed (Spitfire: 250mph; 109 400kph) and they don't jam or become damaged. This has only been for short periods, say 15-20 seconds, like that used in combat by many pilots currently to rapidly decelerate and manoeuver. I mention it is a fair number use this trick at high speed and shouldn't they be tearing off/damaging/jamming the flaps? Although I've never experienced it, maybe they become properly jammed after extended misuse??? I have had one flap jam after damage in my Spit which resulted in a nasty accident when coming into land, but that's another story :))
With landing gear, in the Spit I know they become partially jammed between positions if lowered at high speed but reducing speed and flicking the control up/down and they work again. Not sure this is right either, think I remember reading about landing gear that would bow when lowered at too great a speed and after landing they had to be hammered back in position/replaced.

[Roblex]

How about 'People' damage modelling? Is that accessible to TF?

I would like to see people dying when they just esc back to the lobby instead of just getting an air abandon. Probably hand-in-hand with this is the bug that means a person can land safely back at base, get a 'XXX has landed' message then get posted as 'Air Abandon' or 'Land Abandon' in the stats. Just a few days ago six of my squad RTB'd together after a SoW mission in which everyone got at least a partial kill but when I looked at the stats it said only three of them had landed their kills and I suspect that is due to the same bug.

I measure my own progress by Streaks & K/D ratio so always try my hardest to get home alive or ditch successfully but I can't compare my figures against others to see how I measure up because there are so many people who show as rarely dying just because they always teleport out at the first sign of mortal damage. It also frustrates me that my stats show me with more land and air abandons than landings, so I look like one of the cheaters, when I rarely abandon the aircraft and when I do it is to ride my chute all the way down. Perversely, staying in the aircraft until it hits the ground counts as an abandon as does leaving an aircraft that hit a pothole while taxiing. I wish I could pin down what it is you must do to have your landing count as a landing every time. Some people don't seem to have the problem and I have tried asking them what they do differently but I can't isolate the reason.

If it was possible, it would be nice if a person could only be counted as surviving a sortie if they actually touched the soil (or sea?) with their feet. This would mean 'bailing' as soon as you come to a stop which may or may not need a way to distinguish between doing it at zero feet and doing it at 10,000 feet. If you do bail from a stricken aircraft you would need to stay in the chute until you land or have it counted as a death, perhaps it can trigger the existing 'chute failed' code. Same has to happen if someone teleports out of the cockpit.
Someone will complain that this would mean they get a death for having a connection fail but I am sure those people are far outnumbered by the number that do it to avoid ruining their streak or k/d ratio. I know one pilot who is famous for his deadly gunnery who does it (not seen him for a while strangely) We have watched his name come up as he shoots down a colleague then destroyed his plane a few seconds later only to see it vanish and him relaunch with a perfect record :D

It may not be something that TF can do much about but I thought I would ask. I used to be a professional analyst/programmer so I know that sometimes when a user says 'I have this simple change needs doing' it can involve months of work and sometimes when they say 'This change would be very useful but may be too complicated to be worth doing' it is actually ten minutes work :D

[Broodwich]

How about 'People' damage modelling? Is that accessible to TF?

I would like to see people dying when they just esc back to the lobby instead of just getting an air abandon. Probably hand-in-hand with this is the bug that means a person can land safely back at base, get a 'XXX has landed' message then get posted as 'Air Abandon' or 'Land Abandon' in the stats. Just a few days ago six of my squad RTB'd together after a SoW mission in which everyone got at least a partial kill but when I looked at the stats it said only three of them had landed their kills and I suspect that is due to the same bug.

I measure my own progress by Streaks & K/D ratio so always try my hardest to get home alive or ditch successfully but I can't compare my figures against others to see how I measure up because there are so many people who show as rarely dying just because they always teleport out at the first sign of mortal damage. It also frustrates me that my stats show me with more land and air abandons than landings, so I look like one of the cheaters, when I rarely abandon the aircraft and when I do it is to ride my chute all the way down. Perversely, staying in the aircraft until it hits the ground counts as an abandon as does leaving an aircraft that hit a pothole while taxiing. I wish I could pin down what it is you must do to have your landing count as a landing every time. Some people don't seem to have the problem and I have tried asking them what they do differently but I can't isolate the reason.

If it was possible, it would be nice if a person could only be counted as surviving a sortie if they actually touched the soil (or sea?) with their feet. This would mean 'bailing' as soon as you come to a stop which may or may not need a way to distinguish between doing it at zero feet and doing it at 10,000 feet. If you do bail from a stricken aircraft you would need to stay in the chute until you land or have it counted as a death, perhaps it can trigger the existing 'chute failed' code. Same has to happen if someone teleports out of the cockpit.
Someone will complain that this would mean they get a death for having a connection fail but I am sure those people are far outnumbered by the number that do it to avoid ruining their streak or k/d ratio. I know one pilot who is famous for his deadly gunnery who does it (not seen him for a while strangely) We have watched his name come up as he shoots down a colleague then destroyed his plane a few seconds later only to see it vanish and him relaunch with a perfect record :D

It may not be something that TF can do much about but I thought I would ask. I used to be a professional analyst/programmer so I know that sometimes when a user says 'I have this simple change needs doing' it can involve months of work and sometimes when they say 'This change would be very useful but may be too complicated to be worth doing' it is actually ten minutes work :D
+1 to this, no idea why the stats need to be so confusing and buggy

[Broodwich]

The 109s are also very very fragile, but thats only the radiator. Look at it angry and the radiator breaks!


Well, its pretty common knowledge that 1 rifle round could take out a liquid cooled plane. It just so happens that british planes have 8 of those with a high rate of fire shooting in a nice spread so I wouldnt be surprised that the rads be taken out fairly easily if i were you. Especially since the rads are so wide on the 109. Whether they are armored or not is a different story but I would imagine that the more you armor them the less they transfer heat ;)

[Kling]

Well, its pretty common knowledge that 1 rifle round could take out a liquid cooled plane. It just so happens that british planes have 8 of those with a high rate of fire shooting in a nice spread so I wouldnt be surprised that the rads be taken out fairly easily if i were you. Especially since the rads are so wide on the 109. Whether they are armored or not is a different story but I would imagine that the more you armor them the less they transfer heat ;)

No they are not armored on the 109 and you are right of course that the rad system is very vunerable especially on the 109 since they have two of them. What i wanted to point out more was that there is only on two options. Either its working, or its failing within 120secs.

I just read a book by a BOB pilot called Brian Lane and he describes his wingman flying back from the channel to his base next to London with a leaking radiator.

So obviously not only 120secs there.
MAybe there can be
1. tiny radiator leak 6-10mins
2. radiator leak = 5-6mins
3. Critical radiator leak =120 secs

Just a thought not knowing if its possible at all...

[Broodwich]

No they are not armored on the 109 and you are right of course that the rad system is very vunerable especially on the 109 since they have two of them. What i wanted to point out more was that there is only on two options. Either its working, or its failing within 120secs.

I just read a book by a BOB pilot called Brian Lane and he describes his wingman flying back from the channel to his base next to London with a leaking radiator.

So obviously not only 120secs there.
MAybe there can be
1. tiny radiator leak 6-10mins
2. radiator leak = 5-6mins
3. Critical radiator leak =120 secs

Just a thought not knowing if its possible at all...

Yeah that is true, but IIRC TF says it is a huge workload vs a small gain. British planes suffer the same issues but since the fight is often over their own turf you can glide to a friendly airfield/territory no big deal, vs germans getting captured. Which is quite historical.

PLus anyway, when I hit a rad system its usually with quite a few rounds, not just one. I doubt coding a system such as you propose would make much a difference

[Kling]

Yeah that is true, but IIRC TF says it is a huge workload vs a small gain. British planes suffer the same issues but since the fight is often over their own turf you can glide to a friendly airfield/territory no big deal, vs germans getting captured. Which is quite historical.

PLus anyway, when I hit a rad system its usually with quite a few rounds, not just one. I doubt coding a system such as you propose would make much a difference

Well this would of course also apply to the british planes not only the 109!
Dont see how it can be of small gain when its the cause of 90% of the shoot downs...

[Gromit]

Add to which your not going to get a tiny leak, a round that passes through a rad matrix will rip a hole through it if it's hit from above, if hit from behind its going to take a lot of tubes and fins with it out of the matrix as it passes through the length, and the water is being circulated around by a pump which is going to spray water out at a considerable rate, not leak like a cracked cup.

Bullets tumble and deflect when hitting objects, it may make a hole in the outer skin but it's the exit damage that tells the real story!

[Gromit]

Well this would of course also apply to the british planes not only the 109!
Dont see how it can be of small gain when its the cause of 90% of the shoot downs...

water cooling systems are extremely vulnerable, compare losses to ground fire of P51 and P47.

[Roblex]

I just read a book by a BOB pilot called Brian Lane and he describes his wingman flying back from the channel to his base next to London with a leaking radiator.

Not sure that tells us much as we don't know if this wingmans leaking radiator was totally shot up or it was just a nicked pipe with only a small leak..

Coincidently I did a Google search yesterday on Bf109 radiator damage to see if there was any evidence that the 109 rad was particularly vulnerable. I did not find any strong evidence that it was the primary cause of 109 losses, as it is in CLOD, but did see several mentions of 109s ditching in Kent because of radiator damage and no mention of 109 pilots returning to France with damaged radiators. I would read this as an indication that losing your radiator brought the plane down very soon after.

[Kling]

Not sure that tells us much as we don't know if this wingmans leaking radiator was totally shot up or it was just a nicked pipe with only a small leak..

Well this exactly my point.. In the game we dont have these variables either... Its either leaking heavily or not at all.

Fact is, in a game as complex as CLOD, we dont have ANY engine damage modeled that will force you to nurse your plane back to base. We have oil damage and radiator damage, both of these lead to complete failure after 120 secs. How about a gradual loss of power... lets say you lose 15% of engine power per minute or whatever... anything is better than it is now..

I could accept these 120 secs provided that nothing was done to extend it while in real life, this time would be extended by lowering power, increasing speed, switching the engine off to cool it. In clod not so. Its set on a timer and after this time the engine is kaputt no matter if the engine is even running or not...

[Wulf]

My understanding is that this is historical, to an extent. The British left many/ most of their artillery/ flak pieces in France during the evacuation. It was some months before they had resupplied the south with guns.



Phil, this is a fairly obscure issue, I accept that, but I really wonder if your comments can be correct.

I know the BEF left most of it's equipment in France - that's a given. But would this really have had an impact on the effectiveness of Britain's air defence arrangements? That seems most unlikely to me. If it is in fact true, it suggests that the MoD was so unimaginative that it didn't understand that the BEF couldn't provide effective air defence for the British Isles from it's positions in France - that it didn't understand that German bombers would simply fly over the BEF on their way to England (as happened in WW1) . Alternatively, we would have to accept that a calculated risk had been taken to strip Britain's air defences so as to provide for the BEF while deployed on the Continent. The first proposition is obviously just silly. However, the second is actually just about as implausible IMO because we now know that the British Government had been willing to threaten its relationship with the French by continuing to resist their demands for the deployment of Spitfire squadrons to France; on the basis that this would weaken Britain's air defence. Given what was at stake, it really seems most unlikely to me that the British would have two such contradictory policies operating in tandem. This is especially so given that long-range strategic bombing had been recognised, since the 1920s, as possibly the most decisive factor in any future European war. In fact, so much so that strategic bombing underpinned British defence policy at the time.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the point.................

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Phil, this is a fairly obscure issue, I accept that, but I really wonder if your comments can be correct.
I know the BEF left most of it's equipment in France - that's a given. But would this really have had an impact on the effectiveness of Britain's air defence arrangements? That seems most unlikely to me. ..

Someplace, someone has the MoD list of total number of guns which were in the south east at the end of May 1940/ early June. The number is alarmingly small, (less than around 30 I think from memory). I was flabbergasted when I saw this figure. I'll ask around and see if I can find the reference.

[Gromit]

Not sure that tells us much as we don't know if this wingmans leaking radiator was totally shot up or it was just a nicked pipe with only a small leak..

Coincidently I did a Google search yesterday on Bf109 radiator damage to see if there was any evidence that the 109 rad was particularly vulnerable. I did not find any strong evidence that it was the primary cause of 109 losses, as it is in CLOD, but did see several mentions of 109s ditching in Kent because of radiator damage and no mention of 109 pilots returning to France with damaged radiators. I would read this as an indication that losing your radiator brought the plane down very soon after.

Could also be indicative of the fact no one compiled stats on damage variations, but used the system in place to determine the percentage/category of damage to a returning aircraft for repair.

An enlightening factor on this matter is the 109F introduced the radiator isolating valves, I seriously doubt this would have been a matter of priority unless cooling system damage was a considerable factor in aircraft losses?

[Gromit]

Well this exactly my point.. In the game we dont have these variables either... Its either leaking heavily or not at all.

Fact is, in a game as complex as CLOD, we dont have ANY engine damage modeled that will force you to nurse your plane back to base. We have oil damage and radiator damage, both of these lead to complete failure after 120 secs. How about a gradual loss of power... lets say you lose 15% of engine power per minute or whatever... anything is better than it is now..

Loss of power would increase exponentially as the temp rises until seizure, you would also have to model in the increasing risk of fire as your oil/coolant reaches flashpoint

I could accept these 120 secs provided that nothing was done to extend it while in real life, this time would be extended by lowering power, increasing speed, switching the engine off to cool it. In clod not so. Its set on a timer and after this time the engine is kaputt no matter if the engine is even running or not...

First off how do you know how much damage you have sustained to the system, you seem to be under the impression most of the damage is minimal, whereas in fact it could be greater than you think, in this case would 30 or 40 seconds before failure be acceptable?

switching the engine off wont work if the engine is already overheated as it's going to stay very hot with no cooling system for a long time and the damage is already done, but if your high enough and can glide for a considerable distance, switching off before the engine reaches a critical temp would be logical, and maybe the timer should stop when you shut the engine down in those circumstances, but, once back near a friendly base, do you expect the engine to start up and run fine whilst you land?, in reality it may not even start as the plugs could be fouled etc, so it's dead stick and grit your teeth, and we do that now, it's a matter of altitude.

[E69_pupo]

i always tought the problem is not so much in the damage model of the planes but in the fact people can take whatever ammo beltings they wish, no restrictions.

we are usually comparing real historic data from planes damaged by a mix of ball, tracer and some incendiary + AP bullets, against the 100% AP or 100% HE MG, people use online.

with a fully AP loaded spitfire i've found that the 109 in my sight wont have to worry much of the radiator leak, but more of the missing wing.

[56RAF_klem]

Well this exactly my point.. In the game we dont have these variables either... Its either leaking heavily or not at all.

Fact is, in a game as complex as CLOD, we dont have ANY engine damage modeled that will force you to nurse your plane back to base. We have oil damage and radiator damage, both of these lead to complete failure after 120 secs. How about a gradual loss of power... lets say you lose 15% of engine power per minute or whatever... anything is better than it is now..

I could accept these 120 secs provided that nothing was done to extend it while in real life, this time would be extended by lowering power, increasing speed, switching the engine off to cool it. In clod not so. Its set on a timer and after this time the engine is kaputt no matter if the engine is even running or not...


First off how do you know how much damage you have sustained to the system, you seem to be under the impression most of the damage is minimal, whereas in fact it could be greater than you think, in this case would 30 or 40 seconds before failure be acceptable?

switching the engine off wont work if the engine is already overheated as it's going to stay very hot with no cooling system for a long time and the damage is already done, but if your high enough and can glide for a considerable distance, switching off before the engine reaches a critical temp would be logical, and maybe the timer should stop when you shut the engine down in those circumstances, but, once back near a friendly base, do you expect the engine to start up and run fine whilst you land?, in reality it may not even start as the plugs could be fouled etc, so it's dead stick and grit your teeth, and we do that now, it's a matter of altitude.

I think we're getting into hair splitting. If a radiator is hit then its hit. If 120secs isn't an acceptable value code in a randomiser that sets the delay from anything from 30 seconds to 240 seconds representing the rad being completely wrecked or down to a small leak. You as the pilot don't have any control over your luck. Maybe code could be added to multiply the delay based on engine settings - if it isn't already.

If 109 drivers are fed up with the rad being their main receiver of damage its just as bad for the Spitty pilots. Most of my failures are either engine or control cables. I can accept I get hit and must pay a price but what really pees me off is the lack of hit sounds which could give me a split second warning before something vital is hit instead of which I no doubt get hit by many shells without even knowing it. And yes my volume is up full. It gives the impression of being downed by one ping. Meanwhile when I hit my target aircraft it sounds like someone hitting a dustbin lid with a cricket bat!

As for turning the engine off and restarting it, this did work on occasions for RAF aircraft so perhaps that could be arranged based on damage code or even a randomiser again. But can a 109 be restarted in the air? Didn't it need the inertia starter? Was the prop windmilling enough and wouldn't that have caused more damage anyway for any aircraft?

What would you have done in RL to save your life? You don't have enough altitude to glide across the channel and your rad is leaking. Are you really going to try to make it back with the probability you won't make it or are you going to bail out/crash land? If we must compromise on the DM lets go with something that enforces probable RL decision-making.

[Kling]

First off how do you know how much damage you have sustained to the system, you seem to be under the impression most of the damage is minimal, whereas in fact it could be greater than you think, in this case would 30 or 40 seconds before failure be acceptable?

switching the engine off wont work if the engine is already overheated as it's going to stay very hot with no cooling system for a long time and the damage is already done, but if your high enough and can glide for a considerable distance, switching off before the engine reaches a critical temp would be logical, and maybe the timer should stop when you shut the engine down in those circumstances, but, once back near a friendly base, do you expect the engine to start up and run fine whilst you land?, in reality it may not even start as the plugs could be fouled etc, so it's dead stick and grit your teeth, and we do that now, it's a matter of altitude.

You seem to argue for the sake of arguing and I have no idea what you answered to in the post above as the highlitghted text in my post above was not written by me.

Anyway, Im not saying with should not have vunerable radiators. I have no idea what is wrong with people on these forums. Im not saying that most causes for a shot down 109 shoulnt be a punctured radiator so can we please leave that behind now?!?

What I AM saying is that it would be nice with some variables in the DM.

Remember we are also talking about oil damage here. The oil damage has the same 120sec timer where as IRL people could recieve light oil leaks that would cause a slow temp increase but they could still nurse their plane home. We dont have this option.

But fine Gromit. I know where u stand now.
You obviously think its realistic with EVERY radiator damage leading seizure after 120secs and EVEERY oil leak leading to complete seizure after 120Sec since you wouldnt want any change or variables to this.

I find it common sense that there were no destructable timers in real life.. obviously...

[Kling]

I think we're getting into hair splitting. If a radiator is hit then its hit. If 120secs isn't an acceptable value code in a randomiser that sets the delay from anything from 30 seconds to 240 seconds representing the rad being completely wrecked or down to a small leak. You as the pilot don't have any control over your luck. Maybe code could be added to multiply the delay based on engine settings - if it isn't already.

If 109 drivers are fed up with the rad being their main receiver of damage its just as bad for the Spitty pilots. Most of my failures are either engine or control cables. I can accept I get hit and must pay a price but what really pees me off is the lack of hit sounds which could give me a split second warning before something vital is hit instead of which I no doubt get hit by many shells without even knowing it. And yes my volume is up full. It gives the impression of being downed by one ping. Meanwhile when I hit my target aircraft it sounds like someone hitting a dustbin lid with a cricket bat!

As for turning the engine off and restarting it, this did work on occasions for RAF aircraft so perhaps that could be arranged based on damage code or even a randomiser again. But can a 109 be restarted in the air? Didn't it need the inertia starter? Was the prop windmilling enough and wouldn't that have caused more damage anyway for any aircraft?

What would you have done in RL to save your life? You don't have enough altitude to glide across the channel and your rad is leaking. Are you really going to try to make it back with the probability you won't make it or are you going to bail out/crash land? If we must compromise on the DM lets go with something that enforces probable RL decision-making.

Dont forget, we are also talking about oil leak... I read of at least one report ofa guy who made it to the french coast by switiching on and off his 109s engine. Have no idea who it was and what type of 109 so it might be a useless source.

But as I replied to Gromit. This thread is not about whether radiators should be less vunerable or not. We all know they were vunerable.
What Im against is the predictable 120secs! I read that some people can delay this by doing varioua things but I spent a whole afternoon testing this and there is nothing you can do that I can think of to delay the seizure of the engine. If you find something, let us know.

A randomizer would be great!!! No idea if this is possible i guess it would also have to depend on the type of hits.

But a randomizer for BOTH oil hits and radiator hits would be great!!

This would really force you to scan ur instrumensts to see whether the temps are rising quickly or slowly and whether you need to get out quickly or can try to nurse it back a bit by doing everything possible to keep it cold.

While IM at it. It would also be nice if the orange damage info text could be a server setting.

Im writing this with my phone so sorry for spelling mistakes etc etc

[Gromit]

You seem to argue for the sake of arguing and I have no idea what you answered to in the post above as the highlitghted text in my post above was not written by me.

Anyway, Im not saying with should not have vunerable radiators. I have no idea what is wrong with people on these forums. Im not saying that most causes for a shot down 109 shoulnt be a punctured radiator so can we please leave that behind now?!?

What I AM saying is that it would be nice with some variables in the DM.

Remember we are also talking about oil damage here. The oil damage has the same 120sec timer where as IRL people could recieve light oil leaks that would cause a slow temp increase but they could still nurse their plane home. We dont have this option.

But fine Gromit. I know where u stand now.
You obviously think its realistic with EVERY radiator damage leading seizure after 120secs and EVEERY oil leak leading to complete seizure after 120Sec since you wouldnt want any change or variables to this.

I find it common sense that there were no destructable timers in real life.. obviously...

No I don't think it's realistic, I think it's a game and happy to leave it at that, trying to bring more and more complex issues into the damage just because you don't like losing a plane to a water leak isn't going to improve the game, it's just leads to yet more disagreements as to what damage should do what, there's way to many inconsistencies to the damage modelling in this game to be worked up about how long a plane can fly with water or oil spewing out!

These games can be ruined when people want to push for changes to suit themselves and their interpretations rather than looking at the overall playability of the game, the banana forum was rife with just this sort of "that shouldn't happen, this should happen" arguments, end result was aircraft getting nerfed, planes that wouldn't start and all the other idiotic changes made because people got irate over getting shot down !

[Kling]

No I don't think it's realistic, I think it's a game and happy to leave it at that, trying to bring more and more complex issues into the damage just because you don't like losing a plane to a water leak isn't going to improve the game, it's just leads to yet more disagreements as to what damage should do what, there's way to many inconsistencies to the damage modelling in this game to be worked up about how long a plane can fly with water or oil spewing out!
And to be honest, it just sounds like your getting huffy over being shot down!

Actually I cannot figure out if you are serious or not. Im assuming you are not.
Are seriously trying to implent that that i complain because I get shot down?!

Everyone gets shot down. And only because you consider it a game doesnt change the fact that we can discuss ways to make it more historical.
If you consider it a game only, go and play warthunder.

I and many others considers more than just a game. But more a small glimpse into what it could have been like in skies above th channel on the summer of 1940.

And why not make it as realistic as possible?
If there was bug that would make the left wing wing depart completely on the aircraft as soon as a bullet would touch it, would you also say, "its just a game, it just sounds like you dont like to get shot down"?
Or would you you try to raise concern and make people aware of it and hopefully have it changed?

It was the same thing on ROF a few paches ago when the wing would suddenly come off in almost any abrubt manouvre or soon as they took hits.
Some people complained but others, like you probably, said they sounds like crybabies and should change their tactics and not get hit etc etc..
The thread went on for many pages with people posting videos to prove while some said the videos proved nothing and indeed in WW1 planes are very fragile etc etc.

At one point the developer joined in and said that they found mistakes in the code of the last patch that dramastically reduced the strenth in the wingstructures to something less than half.. Suddenly all the naysayers quit and disappeared.

I couldnt care less if get shot down or not but at least I want to go down as realiticly as possible.

Having a timer of 120sec for any kind of engine damage is not realistic and THAT is what we are arguing about.

If you dont care because its only a game to you then why do you even bother about realistic FM?!

EDIT: sorry if the post sounded aggressive!

Still writing on my phone so spelling mistakes will be present.

[Dutch]

Given what was at stake, it really seems most unlikely to me that the British would have two such contradictory policies operating in tandem.

Apples and pears mate. :D Anti-aircraft artillery was hopelessly inaccurate until later in the war when it was radar guided, and the MoD and cabinet knew this. There were indeed very few AA guns covering the South-East at the time of the Battle, and the gunners themselves knew that they were there mainly to boost the morale of the civilian population, rather than shoot down aircraft. If they did shoot down aircraft, it was more luck than anything else I'd say. Put simply, Spitfires were far more accurate and valuable than AAA, hence kept at home. I can dig out quotes from various books if you like, including Churchill's own history. :thumbsup: The issue of sending more squadrons to France wasn't restricted to Spitfires. Spitfires were never considered for France because they were difficult to produce in terms of man-hours compared to the Hurri, and they weren't going to risk their lower numbers of Spits than Hurris in a location where the 'Dowding System' was not operating. Hurris were far easier to replace. The political question of 'should we or should we not send more squadrons to France?' is an interesting one, and is as much connected with political foreign affairs as it is any real attempt to 'turn the tide' as it were.


You obviously think its realistic with EVERY radiator damage leading seizure after 120secs and EVEERY oil leak leading to complete seizure after 120Sec since you wouldnt want any change or variables to this.

Back to radiators then. I have to confess that I've never noticed the time it takes, but I do know that on many occasions, I've made it back to base with glycol streaming, oil on the screen and engine rattling. The Channel is only 22 miles wide at it's narrowest point. If you're high enough, you can glide home on no engine at all. But it seems reasonable to me that if a pressurised system is holed by only one bullet, unless you immediately turn tail and head home on reduced power, you're going down. Unfortunately I've witnessed pilots insisting on continuing the fight, even when they know they're hit. Serves 'em right if they don't make it back then, as far as I'm concerned. Or put another way, why should Team Fusion put work in to change something that can be remedied by people simply changing their bad habits? I don't mean you here Kling, so don't jump on me! :D

[Kling]

Back to radiators then. I have to confess that I've never noticed the time it takes, but I do know that on many occasions, I've made it back to base with glycol streaming, oil on the screen and engine rattling. The Channel is only 22 miles wide at it's narrowest point. If you're high enough, you can glide home on no engine at all. But it seems reasonable to me that if a pressurised system is holed by only one bullet, unless you immediately turn tail and head home on reduced power, you're going down. Unfortunately I've witnessed pilots insisting on continuing the fight, even when they know they're hit. Serves 'em right if they don't make it back then, as far as I'm concerned. Or put another way, why should Team Fusion put work in to change something that can be remedied by people simply changing their bad habits? I don't mean you here Kling, so don't jump on me! :D

:)
Because people are gaming the game doesnt mean it the DM could be more realistic.
I agree that people who dont head home should end up in the channel. Problem is now that it makes no sense to even try head home since the current DM wont allow it.
Had it instead been the case as you mention above that turning tail and heading home on reduced power would actually make sense, maybe people would actually do it if they saw a point in it. Every game has the issue that some people dont care about being damaged and continue fighting. This could maybe be addressed by removing your kill points, ala il2 1946, if you dont make it back to your base or atleast close to your own coastline (close to being picked up by search and rescue) but that is a different topic that is also very intresting.

I personally think that if people actually knew that the COULD make it back with a leaking radiator or oilsystem, they would actually try it. This together with a requirement for reduced power and RPM (as is the normal SOP for oil leak or increase in oil temp for planes IRL) would make the game far more intresting and realistic. A slow rise in oil temp which could be delayed by doing certain procedures is only realistic. It cannot be stoped but can be delayed, IRL that is...
No planes IRL have a destructive built in timer to destroy the engine after a certain system had been damaged. I would rather see a loss of power for each degree of oil temp increase, followed by seizure. But this could be addressed by switching off the engine and glide for a bit.(this feature is even in Aces high which is a game from 1999)

;)

[Dutch]

:)I personally think that if people actually knew that they COULD make it back with a leaking radiator or oilsystem, they would actually try it.

But they already can, as I outlined above. :D

If the time available was variable, how would they know whether they'd been hit by one bullet or hundreds? Say for instance, one bullet's damage gave you 180 seconds, and 30 bullets damage gave you 6 seconds. How would the pilot gauge how long he's got before engine seizure? It just seems to me that this whole argument is to have it go the other way, and for TF to lengthen significantly the amount of time before seizure. Lengthening the time before seizure would simply give the people who insist on continuing the fight once their rads are damaged, more time to do so. On both sides, by the way. :thumbsup:

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

:)
I agree that people who dont head home should end up in the channel. Problem is now that it makes no sense to even try head home since the current DM wont allow it.


I've flown back to France in 109s after the radiator has been hit, on a few occasions. Just takes a bit of altitude, and some patience, "flying" along just above stall speed. In the spit you can glide with elevator fully trimmed back at ~90mph for ages...

Provided you lose less than 1,500ft/ minute in your glide, you can travel 1.5 miles every minute. The 21 miles across the channel can be crossed in 13 minutes, costing you 19,500ft.

If the pilot uses the first 120 seconds to gain height, or distance (@300 kph you can chop 6 miles off the journey) then you significantly increase your chances of making it home.

A 15 mile journey can be made from a starting height of 15,000ft.

If you pop the radiator over enemy territory below about 15,000ft, then you're looking at bailing-out mid-channel.

The problem is, many players would rather use their 120 seconds to continue fighting, or to hit an enemy base. I can imagine people think; What's the fun in spending 12 minutes flying along at stall speed, in a straight line only to be a sitting duck the whole way? Why not squeeze out two more minutes of zoomy-zoomy, then just jump in another plane that you never have to bother warming up, and re-join the fight well before I would have otherwise made it home in the damaged one? If that 120 seconds was extended, maybe it would just exacerbate the above behaviour for these kinds of players. Then we'd have more whinging about damaged aircraft not going down ... ad infinitum....

[SoW Reddog]

Even nooby pilot me managed to get back from France to Hawkinge with no engine in a Spit. And I wasn't that high, or that skilled. (Don't ask about the landing.....)


Maybe the way to stop people fighting after they've got a rad leak etc is to force them out of ammo? Totally unrealistic, but it'd do the job. *ducks for cover ;)

[Gromit]

Actually I cannot figure out if you are serious or not. Im assuming you are not.
Are seriously trying to implent that that i complain because I get shot down?!

Everyone gets shot down. And only because you consider it a game doesnt change the fact that we can discuss ways to make it more historical.
If you consider it a game only, go and play warthunder.

I and many others considers more than just a game. But more a small glimpse into what it could have been like in skies above th channel on the summer of 1940.

And why not make it as realistic as possible?
If there was bug that would make the left wing wing depart completely on the aircraft as soon as a bullet would touch it, would you also say, "its just a game, it just sounds like you dont like to get shot down"?
Or would you you try to raise concern and make people aware of it and hopefully have it changed?

It was the same thing on ROF a few paches ago when the wing would suddenly come off in almost any abrubt manouvre or soon as they took hits.
Some people complained but others, like you probably, said they sounds like crybabies and should change their tactics and not get hit etc etc..
The thread went on for many pages with people posting videos to prove while some said the videos proved nothing and indeed in WW1 planes are very fragile etc etc.

At one point the developer joined in and said that they found mistakes in the code of the last patch that dramastically reduced the strenth in the wingstructures to something less than half.. Suddenly all the naysayers quit and disappeared.

I couldnt care less if get shot down or not but at least I want to go down as realiticly as possible.

Having a timer of 120sec for any kind of engine damage is not realistic and THAT is what we are arguing about.

If you dont care because its only a game to you then why do you even bother about realistic FM?!

EDIT: sorry if the post sounded aggressive!

Still writing on my phone so spelling mistakes will be present.

This will never be realistic, your sitting in the house playing on a computer, that's all, you will never know the fear or fatigue of the guys who flew, experience the g forces and heat and cold, it's just a game about dogfighting, a good one with great graphics but a game, the flight models are a representation, not fact, 109's don't really pull high G manoeuvres when full of holes, Hurricanes don't really land with the last 2 feet of the wing missing, it's a game and needs to be balanced as such, if you get your rads punctured you have 2 mins before failure, it's simple works for everyone and gives you the chance of getting back if your high/close enough, increase the time after damage and you just get people hanging round in the fight trying for more kills, because it's a game!
I'm not arguing for anything more than not trying to be too clever and ending up with an unbalanced game!

[Dutch]

Maybe the way to stop people fighting after they've got a rad leak etc is to force them out of ammo? Totally unrealistic, but it'd do the job. *ducks for cover ;)

:) Yeah, I can see that would be popular.

When landings are more important statistically than kills. That's when we'll see people making the attempt to get home. When they are rewarded for doing so. At present there is no real incentive to get home, as there was in old IL2, where you got 10 points for a kill, but 100 points if you got home too. Personally, I don't want to see that in Cliffs, even if it's possible now we have fractions of kills counted. But currently, it makes no real difference whether you get home or you bail out, unless your 'chute fails to deploy, so why would people struggle to get home with a hot engine, when they can fight a bit longer, bail out, and suffer no consequences whatever, when the main Stat presented here on this forum is a simple ratio of sorties to kills?

Maybe we should add bailouts to deaths, and have a ratio of kills to this total on the board instead...............

[Gromit]

:) Yeah, I can see that would be popular.

When landings are more important statistically than kills. That's when we'll see people making the attempt to get home. When they are rewarded for doing so. At present there is no real incentive to get home, as there was in old IL2, where you got 10 points for a kill, but 100 points if you got home too. Personally, I don't want to see that in Cliffs, even if it's possible now we have fractions of kills counted. But currently, it makes no real difference whether you get home or you bail out, unless your 'chute fails to deploy, so why would people struggle to get home with a hot engine, when they can fight a bit longer, bail out, and suffer no consequences whatever, when the main Stat presented here on this forum is a simple ratio of sorties to kills?

Maybe we should add bailouts to deaths, and have a ratio of kills to this total on the board instead...............

How about having your stats reset every time you die or are captured?

[Mattias]

:wf:

My 2 cents on the debate (please note that I'm not directly involved in the DM process and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong):
* Radiators hitboxes might or might not be too large or too small (maybe just at a certain LOD/distance). This will be investigated.
* Radiators might lack or have too much armor. This will be checked as well
* Once a radiator get's damaged it's programmed to fail after a certain time. If it's easy to change this to something more realistic/historical we most probably will, but I suspect it will require some serious programming (not to mention a ton of research on all the different types of radiators :D) and I hope you all agree this time can be spent on more pressing issues at the moment :salute:

Cheers/m

[ATAG_JTDawg]

:( All the time being wasted on this banana forum type of BS, Could be better spent on flying !! From what I see there is no for sure time till my engine pops, sometimes it's instant
Sometimes I make it back , I Land over 50% of my planes, an try not to die more then 15 times a month (11 this month) :D , As soon as I take good hits i'm gone . I shoot 3 kinds of ammo , all without the hall monitor looking over my shoulder !!!
WHY are some guys always saying you have to do this or that, there way or the highway ???? Who are you to say how a guy must fly what kind of ammo he should shoot ,
You guys always talk like all are doing this when , it is a few !!! Disable cockpit opening- is that what's next ? pre loaded ammo belts to your specs ? 1 death your done for the month !!!
RAF Wings to tough !! (I've had to many blown off ) but I've only shot off 3-4 109 wings in 2 years !! So where is argument that 109 wings are to tough ?
At this point an time I would like new content , planes, maps etc. IF YOUR THING IS TO BE ANAL, There are plenty of squads out there, just for you. :devilish: .
This forum used to be a good read with my coffee, For the few that want it there way , loosen your tie , let the foreskin roll back up over your head, an give some of us a break !!! :grrr:
:recon: THIS IS A GAME , NO PEOPLE OR ANIMALS WERE HURT DURING THIS POST !!!

[Dutch]

THIS IS A GAME , NO PEOPLE OR ANIMALS WERE HURT DURING THIS POST !!!

:) :thumbsup:

[Kling]

This will never be realistic, your sitting in the house playing on a computer, that's all, you will never know the fear or fatigue of the guys who flew, experience the g forces and heat and cold, it's just a game about dogfighting, a good one with great graphics but a game, the flight models are a representation, not fact, 109's don't really pull high G manoeuvres when full of holes, Hurricanes don't really land with the last 2 feet of the wing missing, it's a game and needs to be balanced as such, if you get your rads punctured you have 2 mins before failure, it's simple works for everyone and gives you the chance of getting back if your high/close enough, increase the time after damage and you just get people hanging round in the fight trying for more kills, because it's a game!
I'm not arguing for anything more than not trying to be too clever and ending up with an unbalanced game!

Can still make it as realistic as possible.
Same argument as before. Why even bother with finetuning the FMs or DM if it makes son sense to you since its not realistic to you anyway?
I would be happy if there was a way to model pilot fatique. Apparently you wouldnt be as this only a game for you and will never be reality and therefor it makes so sense to make things as realistic as possible.
Weird arguments!

[Kling]

:( All the time being wasted on this banana forum type of BS, Could be better spent on flying !! From what I see there is no for sure time till my engine pops, sometimes it's instant
Sometimes I make it back , I Land over 50% of my planes, an try not to die more then 15 times a month (11 this month) :D , As soon as I take good hits i'm gone . I shoot 3 kinds of ammo , all without the hall monitor looking over my shoulder !!!
WHY are some guys always saying you have to do this or that, there way or the highway ???? Who are you to say how a guy must fly what kind of ammo he should shoot ,
You guys always talk like all are doing this when , it is a few !!! Disable cockpit opening- is that what's next ? pre loaded ammo belts to your specs ? 1 death your done for the month !!!
RAF Wings to tough !! (I've had to many blown off ) but I've only shot off 3-4 109 wings in 2 years !! So where is argument that 109 wings are to tough ?
At this point an time I would like new content , planes, maps etc. IF YOUR THING IS TO BE ANAL, There are plenty of squads out there, just for you. :devilish: .
This forum used to be a good read with my coffee, For the few that want it there way , loosen your tie , let the foreskin roll back up over your head, an give some of us a break !!! :grrr:
:recon: THIS IS A GAME , NO PEOPLE OR ANIMALS WERE HURT DURING THIS POST !!!

Dawg, go offline and fly some quick missions in either a spit or 109. As soon as you have taken a radiator leak or oil system leak, start timing. Always the same time, 120-130 secs. There is a built in destruction feature.
There is nothing you can do to change it THAT IS what Im arguing about! ;)

[Kling]

:wf:

My 2 cents on the debate (please note that I'm not directly involved in the DM process and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong):
* Radiators hitboxes might or might not be too large or too small (maybe just at a certain LOD/distance). This will be investigated.
* Radiators might lack or have too much armor. This will be checked as well
* Once a radiator get's damaged it's programmed to fail after a certain time. If it's easy to change this to something more realistic/historical we most probably will, but I suspect it will require some serious programming (not to mention a ton of research on all the different types of radiators :D) and I hope you all agree this time can be spent on more pressing issues at the moment :salute:

Cheers/m
I agree, but what would be the a pressing issue than the most common damage in the game?

[Kling]

I shoot down plenty of planes in my spit and I use mostly dewilde ammo. So with Gromits logic there should not be any changes to the dewilde ammo either for example.

[Kling]

How about having your stats reset every time you die or are captured?

I like this idea!

[ATAG_Snapper]

Actually, ALL discussion is welcome here -- even yours, Dawg! :)

Seriously, the only thing I ask, as your Humble Forum Moderator :D is that the discussion is kept civil. This thread is clearly a good case of what's steak to one man is cold spinach to another. But that's cool. Vive la difference.

Besides, I've heard that the TF leaders are hard cases* and not easily swayed in any direction unless presented with irrefutably documented evidence.

*unless they disagree with any of my thoughts. Then they are hard asses. :-P

[Dutch]

If the time available was variable, how would they know whether they'd been hit by one bullet or hundreds? Say for instance, one bullet's damage gave you 180 seconds, and 30 bullets damage gave you 6 seconds. How would the pilot gauge how long he's got before engine seizure? It just seems to me that this whole argument is to have it go the other way, and for TF to lengthen significantly the amount of time before seizure. Lengthening the time before seizure would simply give the people who insist on continuing the fight once their rads are damaged, more time to do so. On both sides, by the way. :thumbsup:

I note your lack of response. I'll only add 'be careful what you wish for, you may get it'. :D


Dawg, go offline and fly some quick missions in either a spit or 109. As soon as you have taken a radiator leak or oil system leak, start timing. Always the same time, 120-130 secs. There is a built in destruction feature.
There is nothing you can do to change it.

Nor indeed your personal perception of priority. But that's it for me folks, I'm out of this one, and I'll take the Dawg's advice and go play the game. :thumbsup:

[Kling]

From 56thfightergroups website about the Packard Merlin

The P-47s ability to absorb battle damage and still get make it back to base is legendary, and many pilots owe their lives to the rugged construction of the Thunderbolt and the reliability of the air cooled Pratt +Whitney R 2800 engine.

"Unlike the liquid cooled engines of the P-51 Mustang, with which loss of coolant would give the pilot approximately 10-15 minutes flying time before the engine seized",

P-47s returned to base with whole cylinders missing and the contents of the oil reservoir coated along the fuselage sides but still flying. As the saying goes, If you want to get a girl fly a P-51, if you want to get home in one piece fly a P-47


http://www.56thfightergroup.co.uk/aircraft.htm

[ATAG_JTDawg]

Dawg, go offline and fly some quick missions in either a spit or 109. As soon as you have taken a radiator leak or oil system leak, start timing. Always the same time, 120-130 secs. There is a built in destruction feature.
There is nothing you can do to change it THAT IS what Im arguing about! ;)

Online an off line are to different horses. I do not fly off line, an I believe online has a little different set up, as far as time goes on engine fail. also even once in a while I get a plane that would not start with new spawn ( that random thing ) But have not seen that since TF patch. online on spit can be instant, 30 secs , a min. but never very long, what saves me the most is at 20,000 up I can coast home , This game in far from being right. but it's the best it's been .

[Mattias]

I agree, but what would be the a pressing issue than the most common damage in the game?

Adding a pic of my wife in my cockpit is one :D

No, just kidding of course. All I'm saying is that making this change might turn out to be a huge task. I do not disagree it would be sweet if we could have a more detailed and realistic damage model for radiators, especially since I get them all the times myself :thumbsup:

Cheers/m

[ATAG_JTDawg]

I shoot down plenty of planes in my spit and I use mostly dewilde ammo. So with Gromits logic there should not be any changes to the dewilde ammo either for example.

Like I said I shoot 3 kinds of ammo .(to each his own ) I have been asked not to reply on DEWILDE ammo, I will not reopen that can of worms till the patch is out. an can see what it does, but have been reading up on it a lot. We all have opinions, an i'm not saying I disagree with all, I know there is DM problems , I just think there are bigger fish to catch, without more content this game will die !!! lots of these things are being looked at , but with diff . priority===== salute

[56RAF_klem]

From 56thfightergroups website about the Packard Merlin

The P-47s ability to absorb battle damage and still get make it back to base is legendary, and many pilots owe their lives to the rugged construction of the Thunderbolt and the reliability of the air cooled Pratt +Whitney R 2800 engine.

"Unlike the liquid cooled engines of the P-51 Mustang, with which loss of coolant would give the pilot approximately 10-15 minutes flying time before the engine seized",

P-47s returned to base with whole cylinders missing and the contents of the oil reservoir coated along the fuselage sides but still flying. As the saying goes, If you want to get a girl fly a P-51, if you want to get home in one piece fly a P-47


http://www.56thfightergroup.co.uk/aircraft.htm

That's a bit more like it, some evidence for the devs to consider.
IMHO the same bricks have been thrown back and forth enough times now, shall we leave it to the devs?

[Kling]

That's a bit more like it, some evidence for the devs to consider.
IMHO the same bricks have been thrown back and forth enough times now, shall we leave it to the devs?

Yes I agree..

[Roblex]

Having a timer of 120sec for any kind of engine damage is not realistic and THAT is what we are arguing about.

I am surprised nobody is questioning this assertion. Am I the only person that has limped home for more than 120 seconds with a noisy engine and a small oil smear on the screen? I keep expecting someone from TF who knows the code to call 'Bullshit!' but everyone is just accepting it as a fixed timer.

[DUI]

...an try not to die more then 15 times a month (11 this month) :D
Easy to achieve - just do not take off for more than 15 times a month! :D

[ATAG_Snapper]

I am surprised nobody is questioning this assertion. Am I the only person that has limped home for more than 120 seconds with a noisy engine and a small oil smear on the screen? I keep expecting someone from TF who knows the code to call 'Bullshit!' but everyone is just accepting it as a fixed timer.

If I doubted Kling's word I guess I would try timing it myself rather than dissing him by "calling 'Bullshit!'".

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

I am surprised nobody is questioning this assertion.

Why don't you just test it then.
Jump online with a buddy and make three tests, hitting the 109 in the rad and timing to engine failure.

[ATAG_Colander]

I keep expecting someone from TF who knows the code to call 'Bullshit!' but everyone is just accepting it as a fixed timer.

There is no timer. What could be seen as a timer is the time it takes for all the coolant to leak out of the system. This would be dependent on the hole size but, if I'm correct, there are only 2 types (large damage and small damage), Hence 2 "times".

After the coolant has left the building, the engine will seize when the temps reach the breaking point (dependent on the RPMs etc).

In the future, if deemed more important than other changes/fixes, it could be looked at in detail and maybe, a more randomized system could be implemented.

ATAG_Colander.

Note for the future (for everyone):
Do not expect TF to reply to every comment. We are busy enough as it is to also spend the time to read every single post.
No reply from TF means just that "no reply from TF" and not an acceptance or denial of anything.

[Kling]

There is no timer. What could be seen as a timer is the time it takes for all the coolant to leak out of the system. This would be dependent on the hole size but, if I'm correct, there are only 2 types (large damage and small damage), Hence 2 "times".

After the coolant has left the building, the engine will seize when the temps reach the breaking point (dependent on the RPMs etc).

In the future, if deemed more important than other changes/fixes, it could be looked at in detail and maybe, a more randomized system could be implemented.

ATAG_Colander.

Note for the future (for everyone):
Do not expect TF to reply to every comment. We are busy enough as it is to also spend the time to read every single post.
No reply from TF means just that "no reply from TF" and not an acceptance or denial of anything.

Thx for reply Colander. According to tests there is only one type of damage and the the hydraulic fluid leak + engines max temp is reached at a constant 129 secs (retested). This is tested for Spit and 109.

Oil leak/Hyd leaks lead to same results no matter if the engines is on or off which is why its percieved as a set "timer".

Anyway. I think this thread has reached its end and I will retreat.

Thx everyone who contributed with inputs and thx Colander!

Snapper feel free to lock if you feel its appropriate!

Best regards
Kling

[ATAG_Colander]

In short...
Avoid getting shot! :)

[ATAG_Snapper]

Lots of good info and feedback. Thanks to the OP for this thread and thanks to all who contributed!

:)