Ambaryerno

Tracking feature development in the early Corsairs is kind of a pain because so many later improvements were retrofit to older aircraft in the field, (IE the stall strips and paddle props) but far as I’m aware the flap functionality was designed into it right from the start with the -1 Birdcages.

Another Corsair feature I REALLY want to see: The first two notches of the Corsair's flaps (10 and 20 degrees) were a maneuvering setting, and were designed in such a way that once deployed, they could "blow up" if the aircraft exceeded their deployment speed. As the aircraft slowed down they would then drop again. They weren't true automatic flaps, but the pilot could essentially "set and forget" when in combat. I don't think I've ever seen this functionality simulated before, (most sims simply decide, "You've exceeded your flap speed? Too bad, they've jammed.") so it would be really cool to see it actually get implemented.

Was I not clear enough for you? A pilot could ID the differences between different aircraft types at a FAR greater range than even the best computer monitors can display. It's not being a "weenie" to want the game to account FOR WHAT THE HUMAN EYE IS CAPABLE OF BUT A COMPUTER SCREEN ISN'T. You sure as hell don't need to be a **** by insinuating insults of anyone who disagrees with you.

Who's saying to do that? By all means, aircraft shouldn't be instantly identified the second they pop on screen, and there should absolutely be a period between the range it first becomes visible, and when it gets identified. But if you could tell an F4F from a Zero at 3.5 miles IRL, it's no better realism to not provide any sort of feedback at all and leave it as a tiny little dot on a screen.

And I've been playing sims since Aces of the Pacific, so what's your point? Your post comes across as a weird flex, because unless you're simulating a pilot who would never have passed the eye exams to actually get his wings and someone manage to sneak through his physical, no icons to compensate for the hardware limitations at all is no more real — and in fact actually ends up being more difficult than real life — than having them. With the visual acuity even an average pilot would have, you could begin picking out identifying features of an aircraft around 6000 yards or so (exceptional individuals a bit further out. I believe Yeager could ID an aircraft from about 5+ miles). In EVERY sim I've ever played, that aircraft is still rendered as a little black smudge on the horizon at this distance. How is that real? There's ways to handle it to prevent a giant neon sign taking the place of maintaining proper situational awareness. IE, you could have the icon only appear when the aircraft is within that identifiable range and after so long having the aircraft centered in your view, (to represent actually focusing on that dot to pick out those details) etc.

The thing most people don't realize about icons is that they compensate for the hardware limitations players have to deal with. An aircraft that would be identifiable by silhouette in real life may only be rendered as a dot even on an 8k display because of the limits of pixel density and field of view. You're basically simulating a pilot who would have been so near-sighted he never would have been accepted for service in the first place. Properly implemented, icons correct for this by standing in for actual human visual acuity. It also helps to make up for the lack of depth perception when depicting a 3D object in a 2D image. These things are BETTER with with 3D headsets, but there's still artificially limited draw distances and object scaling that unnaturally limit your visual range.

As I’ve said, I think the best approach is to make it configurable. And not just a simple on/off option, but a scalable level of fidelity. That way you can appeal to those of us who want a more hardcore simulation, while still making it accessible for casual players. I think this is especially important because of how poorly the PTO is represented in the industry to begin with, and you don’t have multiple alternatives that if one sim isn’t to your tastes you can go to another.

Yeah, this is much like what I'd had in mind. European Air War did something similar: You had campaign options that implemented supply lines, so your campaign could end simply because you ran out of operable planes and pilots. It didn't go as far as affecting aircraft performance, but it still gave events during the campaign real weight. Environmental conditions were such a HUGE factor in the Pacific, this ought to be depicted in some form. You had aircraft that were being operated out of very primitive facilities thousands of miles from your supply bases, in incredibly harsh climates. This SHOULD have an effect over time. Aircraft that aren't performing up to specs, increased chances of mechanical failure, etc. But it should all be options that can turned off and on, not something people who don't want it are forced to be subjected to.

If we get options for field mods, we need these for the Corsairs: Denavalization - Remove arrestor gear, wing fold mechanisms, add raised tail wheels (either that, or just make the FG-1A/D a separate model). Broad-chord props - Paddle props were first tested on the F4U-1A by VF-17, and were then retrofit to other Corsairs in the field, as well as most of the F4U-1D production run.

IMO it should depend on what sort of multiplayer play we're talking about. If it's some sort of War Thunder-style Air Quake matchmaking, I don't think it should really matter all that much since those matches seldom last long enough for engine heating to really be a factor. Even if it's Air Warrior/Aces High-style persistent arena play it starts to get a little questionable. Now, if there's going to be doing a full, extended online campaign where you're simulating being a pilot in a respective air force receiving specific missions, that's where I could see having cumulative wear and tear on the engine becoming a factor. In which case pushing your engine beyond the manual restrictions may or may not lead to damage on that sortie. Maybe you'll be fine. Maybe the accumulated hours since the last overhaul means your engine throws a rod or blows a gasket when pushed too hard. Maybe you don't get to fly your regular carefully-tuned ride that day because your crew chief had to pull the engine for a tear-down after a few too many sorties exceeding the book's settings, and you're stuck flying a loaner. Although if you want to be REALLY realistic: It was extremely rare for US Navy and Marine Corps pilots during WWII to have personal aircraft (VF-17 is one of the few that did, but they also got a LOT of special treatment; theirs were the first Corsairs to be fit with the broad-chord paddle props, for instance). In fact, many entire squadrons didn't have their own machines, and instead every squadron at a particular airbase would draw from the same pool of aircraft depending on what was available. In which case every time you go up you'd likely be flying a different plane, and you never knew if you were going to get assigned to a lemon that day.

Given how often I've seen it whispered about Oleg showing favoritism towards the Russian plane set in Il-2 and the BoX, I'm surprised the P-39 didn't get some quiet buffing. Anyway, I'm sure there must be some way they could more realistically simulate these things. I think engine reliability and robustness SHOULD be a factor, because it does play a significant role in how individual aircraft performed. An R-2800 flown with 100/130 avgas shouldn't be arbitrarily restricted to the same performance timers and failure chances as a Homare choking on 87 octane p*ss water.

SO many P-38 engines destroyed because the pilots were trained with the wrong cruise power settings...

F4U-1A, with the option to denavalize it and add the paddle prop mod.

Regarding the survey: My experiences have been that engine temperature limits have been simultaneously over AND under modeled in any sim I've ever played. While the modeled effects are usually milder than real life, with more warning and feedback than real pilots may have received, and usually lacking permanent damage so long as you let the engine cool down, having everything triggered exactly on the listed specifications ultimately just ends up frustrating because it makes engine management TOO restrictive, predictable, and gamey My thoughts would be to first make everything granular based on the server and offline difficulty settings. So if you want those more extreme, severe effects rather than treating engine overheats as a "cool down timer," you can. However, I'm not a fan of restricting thresholds to the manual at all. Surely there's a more realistic way this could be managed than X time at Y power = engine go boom? From my own reading, it sounds like pilots routinely pushed their aircraft beyond the book restrictions in combat, often because squeezing out a little more power for a little longer could mean the difference between getting shot down and making it home for your crew chief to yell at you. Some engines were also considerably more robust than others (IE the built like a tank R-2800) which would make this ability to push the aircraft harder with less risk of failure an important advantage (imagine a late-War Japanese campaign, where the poor reliability of the Ki-84's engine becomes a factor). One idea I'd had was if the game has a logistics model, (think European Air War, where you could limit the number of aircraft, bombs, etc. available) this could work into the engine modeling. Say, pushing the engine too hard would mean you're short an aircraft on the next sortie, because the mechanics have to do a tear down and rebuild to make sure you didn't damage something that could affect the engine's performance, or the chance of a failure increasing the longer the engine goes without an overhaul (which would especially be a factor in something like a Guadalcanal campaign).

YES, start with Aces of the Pacific and how comprehensive it was, and build from there. Maybe combine it with the dynamic campaign capabilities of European Air War where you had a limited number of planes, pilots, and munitions, and the AI pilots in the squadron could actually gain experience as the campaign progressed.