PDA

View Full Version : Random Mechanical Failures



HANS-57
11-11-2004, 09:05 AM
My grandfather was an aircraft mechanic in the USAAC in England during WWII. He used to tell some interesting stories about pilots and actually going down, or limping back due to various random mechanical failures without ever even engaging in combat.

I noticed in LOMAC there is a feature that allows you to turn on a feature which will add various random electronic or mechanical failures. I think this really adds to the realism of the simulation.

I was an Avionics technician for the USAF, I am keenly aware of the inevetablility of failures in flight. IL2 is probobly challenging enough for most people without the added worries of mechanical failures, but would I love the challenge.

What do you think?

Nige_Reconman
11-11-2004, 09:18 AM
Sensational idea! It would add a whole new element to the game.

rummyrum
11-11-2004, 09:34 AM
They use to be around but seem to have disappeared as IL2 has progressed.

269GA-Maxmars
11-11-2004, 09:34 AM
If it was random it would annoy me to no end, but if it was related to how you use the crate, then it would be super. We always play and yank the stick as if the plane was indestructible!

Daiichidoku
11-11-2004, 09:44 AM
Yes, this would be nice, but given the nature of workmanship and/or material quality for either early war russian craft, or late war japanese stuff, there would be a hue and cry that would make 190 view restrcted drivers cringe

I would like to see a set of components that would or could randomly fail on ALL types of aircraft

Like gunsight bulb failures, which happened often enough IRL, and would necessitate implementation of the ring and bead sights

Too bad FB/PF could not be tied to RW or Ventrilo use, then there would be ability for random radio failures, another RL not uncommon occurence

Spy17
11-11-2004, 09:53 AM
Good idea!

Gato__Loco
11-11-2004, 12:47 PM
This has been discussed before, and I think it would be a good feature to have.

SeaFireLIV
11-11-2004, 03:06 PM
Yes, this has been discussed before. But we must keep reminding Oleg! What`s this fear of implementing random mechanical failures? Make it an Option if there`s fear of the `no fun` whining crowd!

timmyg
11-11-2004, 04:55 PM
Yes it's a good idea. Enjoy Zero when I stall of motor and have to restart in middle of dog fight. Fighting to keep the motor going somtimes is kool. Like cooking 109 motor with weps added at full power.

BfHeFwMe
11-11-2004, 05:40 PM
Need a real 'complex' damage model first.

WUAF_Badsight
11-11-2004, 09:52 PM
its a bad bad bad idear for the FB game engine

bad

ucanfly
11-11-2004, 11:57 PM
It's great for flight sim but terrible for combat sim - unless it is related to airccraft abuse by the pilot.

Yellonet
11-12-2004, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
its a bad bad bad idear for the FB game engine

bad <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why?

Are you saying that the game engine couldn't handle a few extra lines of code?

This feature is not impossible to implement in the game. The question is if they have the will to do so. Just like with duds...

Atomic_Marten
11-12-2004, 12:27 PM
Just imagine your crate that's on fire and you desperate trying to bail. But the dmn canopy won't open..it's jammed.http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/images/smiles/Haha.gif

HANS-57
11-12-2004, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
It's great for flight sim but terrible for combat sim - unless it is related to airccraft abuse by the pilot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Terrible for combat sim? I am having a hard time understanding your point of contention. Have you seen LOMAC? (Lock on Modern Air Combat) This combat sim has not only the random failure feature, but for added fun you can specify the type of failure and when it will occur. Another good thing about it is, you can simply turn it off if you don€t like it.