The 'X' Factor

[Boom]

There is a discussion going on about the 'Spitfire v Zero' in General Discussion. And how 'on paper' both seem relatively matched in turn performance. Which to a degree is true.

But in actual combat the Zero consistently got the better of the Spitfire throughout 1943 over Darwin, the only time these two aircraft met in a protracted air campaign. There were a number of reasons for this e.g. tactics, range, climb rate and angle of climb, training, pilot skill, gun stoppages, leadership, situational awareness, mission task, team work, height dis/advantage, fuel; the list goes on.

The most interesting point about that discussion is that it illustrates just how divergent 'paper' aircraft performance facts differ from real situations.

And this brings me to the purpose of this thread.

In the sims we love aircraft performance is based on the 'paper' figures, rigorously detailed and argued over. Which is fine, we have to have a base to start with. But whereas in the past that has been the beginning and the end, in Combat Pilot I am hoping for much more.

In the 'Campaign' mode it would be wonderful to see 'limits' placed that would affect the game play. I'm not talking of so-called pilot fatigue for AI, which a number of older sims have tired to implement, without success.
For example, if a mission involves a raid, either have the defenders take off late and therefore be below the attacking formation, so can be bounced. Or have the enemy take off in plenty of time and be above the raiders so they can bounce them. But lets do away with meeting the defenders/attackers co-height.
Another example would be have gun stoppages factored in to reflect what may have happened in real life, as was common with the Spitfires over Darwin.
For Carrier landings lets have the deck actually pitch. I'll bet that'll make a few of us sweat!
Or canopies becoming misted over (and vision loss) due to the rise in air tempertaure as an aircraft dives from cold to hot climes.
If New Guinea is featured then have clear sky on way to target, and then becoming socked in for the return.
And have clouds really block out views for both human and AI pilots, let the opportunity of surprise be a real threat. Or of missing the target altogether.

Thats just a few idea's. Be interested in what others think. Or if any of the above is really practicable.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Boom

[GrungyMonkey]

8 hours ago, Boom said:

There is a discussion going on about the 'Spitfire v Zero' in General Discussion. And how 'on paper' both seem relatively matched in turn performance. Which to a degree is true.

But in actual combat the Zero consistently got the better of the Spitfire throughout 1943 over Darwin, the only time these two aircraft met in a protracted air campaign. There were a number of reasons for this e.g. tactics, range, climb rate and angle of climb, training, pilot skill, gun stoppages, leadership, situational awareness, mission task, team work, height dis/advantage, fuel; the list goes on.

The most interesting point about that discussion is that it illustrates just how divergent 'paper' aircraft performance facts differ from real situations.

And this brings me to the purpose of this thread.

In the sims we love aircraft performance is based on the 'paper' figures, rigorously detailed and argued over. Which is fine, we have to have a base to start with. But whereas in the past that has been the beginning and the end, in Combat Pilot I am hoping for much more.

In the 'Campaign' mode it would be wonderful to see 'limits' placed that would affect the game play. I'm not talking of so-called pilot fatigue for AI, which a number of older sims have tired to implement, without success.
For example, if a mission involves a raid, either have the defenders take off late and therefore be below the attacking formation, so can be bounced. Or have the enemy take off in plenty of time and be above the raiders so they can bounce them. But lets do away with meeting the defenders/attackers co-height.
Another example would be have gun stoppages factored in to reflect what may have happened in real life, as was common with the Spitfires over Darwin.
For Carrier landings lets have the deck actually pitch. I'll bet that'll make a few of us sweat!
Or canopies becoming misted over (and vision loss) due to the rise in air tempertaure as an aircraft dives from cold to hot climes.
If New Guinea is featured then have clear sky on way to target, and then becoming socked in for the return.
And have clouds really block out views for both human and AI pilots, let the opportunity of surprise be a real threat. Or of missing the target altogether.

Thats just a few idea's. Be interested in what others think. Or if any of the above is really practicable.

 

 

I was only ever talking about on paper stats.

I finally deleted the post cause people kept reading too much into it.