Discussion of Developer Diary #09

[charon]

 

Quote

 

Engines in WWII were rated for X time to run at high levels of power, as stated in the manuals. WWII Engines were tested at maximum powers for much longer intervals than recommended in the manual, but often the mass production of engines and quality of field maintenance negatively impacted the lifespan of engines at maximum power.

 

If you exceed the rated intervals of power, the engine should:

 

I answered 'no penalty'.

However, I think 'rated intervals' is the wrong way to approach it, if you do having a penalty. What's important to me is that the limits don't come to ahistorically dominate the experience of flying the plane. The P-39 in BoX is a good example of this: the limits are so restrictive that conforming to them winds up dominating the experience, especially if the player attempts to ever push it beyond its critical altitude. And the decision to not model the safety wire exacerbates this, since nothing stops the player from accidentally pushing power settings that required deliberate action in real life. If you do wind up applying some form of timer, if you decide that it's a necessary gamism, I'd rather see some sort of uniform limit imposed across the board (e.g. minimum 30 minutes at whatever the manual lists as 'military power', water until it runs out, and and 5 minutes at any power settings that require a catch or a wire be bypassed seems reasonable enough to me) rather than trying to conjure a time-to-failure that we agree didn't exist out of the manuals. With BoX it just feels like some planes got arbitrarily hit with the suck-stick.

If you do go with engine timers I also think there should also be enough of a random grace period in them such that twins don't lose both engines simultaneously.

[Legioneod]

Thanks for the survey and giving players a chance to voice their desires.

Just gonna post my thoughts to the survey for discussions sake.

 

1. If you exceed the rated intervals of power, the engine should.

• No Penalty per se. Definitely no timers. But engines do wear out from abuse so I wouldn't mind seeing the engine/aircraft state being tied to the players profile/pilot so that the player is more conscious of abusing the engine.

 2. Engines in WWII suffered reliability issues, should these be modelled in an environment (eg. Multiplayer) where you are re-flying a fresh airplane each time?

• Yes reliability issues should be present but I think if possible it should be like above, where the plane is tied to the player profile/pilot (at least until its shot down).

3. Engine overheat damage modelling, how do you notify to the player that he is suffering from an overheat? (besides gauges in the cockpit)

• I prefer just using gauges so that's what I put but I can understand players wanting a text to warn you. It should be a difficulty setting though and not default that way it can be disabled in multiplayer server wide.

4. Engine overheat damage modelling, what should happen to the engine when it overheats?

• Most important one imo. Engine thermals should be modelled as best as possible.
• When reaching critical temps and exceeding them the engine / engine cooling will degrade in ways.
• Things like detonation, loss of cooling system thermal efficiency (no longer able to keep up with shedding of heat from the engine.) Burning of oil and potential loss of proper lubrication/cooling effect of oil. Coolant can also boil off as well, especially is the system is compromised by damage to the system (loss of pressurization, low coolant, etc)
• Continuous operation of the engine above critical temps could lead to degraded performance, damage, and eventual critical failure/seizure. This can happen in a matter of seconds or minutes or longer depending on the circumstances.

5. WWII Aero engine cooling systems were designed with airborne conditions in mind, which meant many airplanes had to take off within 3-5 minutes of engine start to prevent overheating while in the ground. This conditioned recovery and take-off operations. Should this be modelled?

• It should be modeled but not all engines will overheat within minutes of starting, they have to warm up and it really depends on the cooling system of the aircraft. Air cooled being more susceptible to overheating on the ground.

6. WWII Aero engines suffered a loss in performance and reliability when running cold. Should this be modelled?

• Yes.

 

However you model it please do not make the mistake of putting artificial timers on the engines like in Il2.

Edited August 14 by Legioneod

[Ambaryerno]

31 minutes ago, charon said:

 

I answered 'no penalty'.

However, I think 'rated intervals' is the wrong way to approach it, if you do having a penalty. What's important to me is that the limits don't come to ahistorically dominate the experience of flying the plane. The P-39 in BoX is a good example of this: the limits are so restrictive that conforming to them winds up dominating the experience, especially if the player attempts to ever push it beyond its critical altitude. And the decision to not model the safety wire exacerbates this, since nothing stops the player from accidentally pushing power settings that required deliberate action in real life. If you do wind up applying some form of timer, if you decide that it's a necessary gamism, I'd rather see some sort of uniform limit imposed across the board (e.g. minimum 30 minutes at whatever the manual lists as 'military power', water until it runs out, and and 5 minutes at any power settings that require a catch or a wire be bypassed seems reasonable enough to me) rather than trying to conjure a time-to-failure that we agree didn't exist out of the manuals. With BoX it just feels like some planes got arbitrarily hit with the suck-stick.

If you do go with engine timers I also think there should also be enough of a random grace period in them such that twins don't lose both engines simultaneously.

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.

[Aapje]

@Legioneod

I would like to see permanent repercussions across missions for SP, but I have my doubt that it would work for MP.

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, Aapje said:

@Legioneod

I would like to see permanent repercussions across missions for SP, but I have my doubt that it would work for MP.

I think it would be possible but would probably be difficult to implement. Just need a way to keep track of the aircraft the player is flying and the condition of its engine, until he gets shot down of course and gets a new aircraft.

In singleplayer it's essential to have something like this imo.

Edited August 14 by Legioneod

[Ambaryerno]

1 minute ago, Legioneod said:

I think it would be possible but would probably be difficult to implement. Just need a way to keep track of the aircraft the player is flying and the condition of its engine, until he gets shot down of course and gets a new aircraft.

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.

[Boo]

@Jason_Williams thanks for the update. The excitement builds....

[TP_Bunster]

Just awesome !

Really getting quite excited now - poll answers submitted.

Thanks Jason and the team, keep up the outstanding work.

S! Bunster

[HerrMurf]

Really well done and really excited about the future. Survey completed. Where do we sign up for Beta Testing?

Edited August 14 by HerrMurf

[Dauntless]

Grey Ghost!! 😎

Survey submitted.

[kestrel79]

For an offline campaign, I'd like to see the quality of the engine and airplane depend on how your side is doing in the war. Let's say supply lines got shot up or supply airplanes/airbases got shot down or destroyed, you might be short on engine parts and skilled mechanics. So in turn if you push your engine harder for longer, the next mission maybe it has a higher chance of your engine breaking down on your or not running as strong until you can get it fixed or get resupplied. That would be kinda cool.

Or in multiplayer if a bomber or attack plane knocks out certain supply buildings it would make aircraft that spawn in later not run as fast due to the same reasons above. Air Warrior had this in the 90's in a very primitive state would love to see a modern sim take a stab at it.

Making all these options server options too would be helpful so people who don't want it can still fly. Still very exciting they are asking us what we want. I respect that nice update!

[Ambaryerno]

2 minutes ago, kestrel79 said:

For an offline campaign, I'd like to see the quality of the engine and airplane depend on how your side is doing in the war. Let's say supply lines got shot up or supply airplanes/airbases got shot down or destroyed, you might be short on engine parts and skilled mechanics. So in turn if you push your engine harder for longer, the next mission maybe it has a higher chance of your engine breaking down on your or not running as strong until you can get it fixed or get resupplied. That would be kinda cool.

Or in multiplayer if a bomber or attack plane knocks out certain supply buildings it would make aircraft that spawn in later not run as fast due to the same reasons above. Air Warrior had this in the 90's in a very primitive state would love to see a modern sim take a stab at it.

Making all these options server options too would be helpful so people who don't want it can still fly. Still very exciting they are asking us what we want. I respect that nice update!

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.

[PA_Keko]

Looks Awesome 

[Smink1701]

Looking really good!

[Talisman]

Many thanks for the update.  Splendid!  😃

Happy landings,

Talisman

[Mac_Messer]

Thanks for the update. I did the survey, talking from 7 years of online experience. Doing sea sorties I was lost many times and dealing with engine damage was too much on the stress of telling my position and managing fuel. I would say I`d want the whole thing to be accessible. In my opinion the casual flightsimgoer could be very much afraid of navigating anything related to sea/ships even if the map is the smaller sort.

I know it sounds patronizing but keep it simple and do the easy stuff first.

[Mysticpuma]

I'd simply look at what's available and give Server owners the ability to try and involve as many people as possible. Simple arcade deathmatch servers, to campaign servers, all have a place, but don't be elitist. Making every server max difficulty won't encourage new players, in fact it will actively deter them.

This thread is worth a read, it was a robust discussion, but all sides took on each others point of view and it's a good indication of what a variety of players would need in a multiplayer environment (and why online play suffers if not).

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/85834-why-did-multiplayer-never-take-off/

 

[Sea Serpent]

I hope CP is complex enough to deter the airquake crowd who is looking for instant-gratification action with a zero learning curve barrier to online play.  IL-2 GB did not do that sufficiently imo, at least as I analyze it from the perspective of someone who quit it years ago.  As for CloD, I heard that its lack of appeal was simply because it wasn’t a very good game. 

[Ambaryerno]

9 minutes ago, Sea Serpent said:

I hope CP is complex enough to deter the airquake crowd who is looking for instant-gratification action with a zero learning curve barrier to online play.  IL-2 GB did not do that sufficiently imo, at least as I analyze it from the perspective of someone who quit it years ago.  As for CloD, I heard that its lack of appeal was simply because it wasn’t a very good game. 

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.

[HerrMurf]

1 hour ago, Ambaryerno said:

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.

My modes thread:

 

 

[ZachariasX]

Great update Jason!! But how are we supposed to bomb pretty ships like that??

I also completed the survey in a rather quick manner. But what is important  to me is:

The engines should have a power output that takes local weather into account. 47 MAP in the hot, humid pacific is not the same 47 MAP in the Aleutian Islands. This means that a defined structural load tolerance should always reflect the local atmoshpere as much as in the lift computation of the aircraft. You will see, firewalling the throttle will become increasingly possible on the equator. But nobody in Alaska would bring his aircraft home in doing so. Or show me anyone who did. The Russkies certainly were aware of how much metal the engine made if you did that over the steppe.

Player cues for exceeding the limits: ideally, there should ideally be none besides how the "engines really behaves", but one could introduce another selectable "easy mode" to display a technochat message. It would also help players to learn managing  the engine. In real life, the cockpit evnironment is a very viceral one. It is incredibly loud, it vibrates, it smells. An unhappy engine may change its notes in very subtle ways before it is dead. People today have little concept of how these old mechanics behave and even the "tough engine", the Double Wasp, can be killed in seconds by a moron in the cockpit. "Tough" in 1940 means in 2024 that "it somewhat works if you take good care of it" and has NOTHING to do with the reeliability of a regular car engine of today. The Double Wasp was that "tough" mainly because the competing Twin-Cyclone was essentially a single use, throw away item. The drive to work ten times and then replace your car's engine type of item. With the Double Wasp, you could drive to work for a month before you have to do serious work on it. So though!

Another issue with realism is that players generally don't share the Angst of having to rely on that loud contraption that absolutely has to fuction, else they are mostly dead. You have the same tense care when driving vintage cars. You are always listening, you are always smelling it, you are feeling it... and getting proficient with it, you get that subtle note when the engine is unhappy. All the gauges will still be a-ok. But when you know, you know when there's something on that shouldn't be. This is much before there's smoke (God forbid!), as this would mean that there is glowing hot metal inside your engine, meaning the engine is in process of coming apart.

I am not sure if such subtleties will translate well into a simulator, most of all a combat sim, where players generally don't give a flying f*ck about their ride, as it will be be destroyed anyway by getting shot at, and "flying there" is as close to the "grind" of the game as you can possibly get. This means, I would suggest that there are reasonably realistic, however artificial cues (but excessive in absolute terms) in sound and vibration that a player can identify in a same manner as any pilot learns to listen to his engine. Like this, the player can manage the engines. It is a balance for sure. Let me make this analogy: The gauges are the history books. The sound and smell are the newspapers when it comes to getting informed about something bad happening. YOU CANNOT actively manage those engines on the very edge with just looking at the gauges alone. Neither in the sim (we all know how impractical that is), nor in real life. The engine needs a song for when it's happy and songs for the different ways when it's not. It is obvious that such can only be made "resonably realistic".

Also: running an engine on the edge absolutely requires it to be run in the right configuration. (if it always dies on you, read the effin' manual!) BoX for instance has no concept of chamber pressure. But this is one of the main determinants of load imposed on your engine (and one of the central determinants in engine design). That is why you can do idiotic things in that sim to game the timer. If CB will have no internal computation of mean effective pressure (BMEP), then ANY effort for a meaningful implementation of engine limits is moot. So yes, the Double Wasp was tough, as you could get it to produce a lot of power, but let me tell you, if you don't do that power setting as it is done in the manual, you are up for a swim or a jungle expedition. In the PMDG version of the DC-6, making your "tough engine" last 100 hours without much degradation is an achievemen in itself... And before I forget, if you happily  windmill your "tough engine"it will die too. Probably not at once, but your mechanic will cry. It can tolerate lots of load, but not in the wrong direction. At least in real life.

Then there's the issue with the prop governor: If it would be implemented in CP as the "instant device" we had in BoX, that woul d be most unfortunate. In a Spit or a Mustang, you very carefully shove the throttle forward. If you move it to max from idle in one quick movement, the engine will spin up like you car's engine in neutral and that that will be he end of your flying adventure. It takes a good 5 seconds or so (IIRC) for the prop to adjust and keep the rpm in check. You keep a keen eye on the tach when doing so! A slow governor and the fact that excessive BMEP are terminal to your engine will have direct repercussions on how you fight when going for an overshoot. In BoX, common practise will have you walk home at once in the real aircraft. Funny enough, in BoX, there were lamentations about the slow spool up of the 190D9. In fact, that is probably the benchmark for most aircraft in real life. I seriously doubt  that the Wasps governor is that much faster then the one on the Merlin. But how fast it really is has to be found out.

[kissTheSky]

Thanks for the update. 
 

I hope there will be a P-38 added to the plane set at some point for late war land based campaigns.

[Robli]

Personally I don't understand why it should bother me that "airquake crowd" is playing on an "airquake server", while I played on a sim server with hardcore junkies, for example. The bucks that the airquakers bring to the company might actually be useful for developing stuff that hardcore-simmers also enjoy.

[BlitzPig_EL]

2 hours ago, kissTheSky said:

Thanks for the update. 
 

I hope there will be a P-38 added to the plane set at some point for late war land based campaigns.

Eventually will will need land based Army types, for both the Allies and Imperial Japan.  The Pacific war was a lot more than just aircraft carriers.

[CountZero]

58 minutes ago, Robli said:

Personally I don't understand why it should bother me that "airquake crowd" is playing on an "airquake server", while I played on a sim server with hardcore junkies, for example. The bucks that the airquakers bring to the company might actually be useful for developing stuff that hardcore-simmers also enjoy.

Same.

You need to have place where players can start , adjustable icons like in old IL-2, skies of valor or fire, or some similar servers had full icons for frendlys for enemy only some things would be displayed at certen distances.

When i started in online il-2 i didnt jump in on "full real" servers, i played on servers with icons and outside views and no cocpit views, aim assist, if i started online play and only option was cockpit and no icons i doubt i would play more then few days and call it quits. Now i play only on servers without icons but it took time to get there and enjoy playing like that online. There needs to be both options in game, GB lacks no cocpit view and adjustable icons, its either to arcade or to real, so arcade servers are empty and full real servers are to hard for new players, even players who played in SP for years would fined it extreme there, its turned now in only veterans playing with no new players realy having place to start and its imposible to grow like that.

Airstarts and artificial runways like we had in old IL-2 should be mandatory for PTO so mission makers can move action closer, ability to flaten some ground area and remove forrest on maps like solomons or new guinea and so on... so bases are closer. For Midway ok we have carriers so you just move them closer but for future maps if they are 1:1, options like that should be made posible.

From what i noticed big problem for new player online is SA, accuracy or flying airplane they usealy have, and knowing where action is, SP player usealy thinks if he dont get in DF in 10min in online servers its bad so they tend to just hd strait for closest enemy base, and its just brutal like that as they putt them self in positions where they are constantly outnumbered and at disadvantage... starting on servers with icons help that a little.

 

 

Edited August 15 by CountZero