PDA

View Full Version : Ideas for BoB: control inputs & engine management



Ratsack
03-01-2006, 12:01 AM
I have a cunning plan, m€Lord.

The following are ideas for BoB, because I suspect that we are too far down the development path in Il-2 for any of this to be implemented. Nevertheless, here they come.

There€s been some discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif in various threads about elevator stiffness and stick forces, trim and bat turns, and that hoary old chestnut, the combat flap setting. I have a suggestion to model these things in a way that would deliver more realistic gameplay. Sordid details following.

The first thing is stick force. I read somewhere in these boards that Oleg has modelled the elevators with a maximum deflection equal to that applied with 50 lb of stick force. Let€s take that 50 lb figure as given for the moment, and let us further assume that it is modelled for one-handed use of the control column. That is to say, he€s modelled it so that we can apply 50 virtual lb with our virtual right arm.

Let€s add the left arm. That means that we€d be nearly doubling the available stick force. I say €˜nearly€ because in most planes, there€s not enough room on the grip to get both hands on properly. This would enable us to apply a maximum of, say 80 lb with both hands. Not a firm number, just a suggestion for the sake of argument.

The first point of differentiation would be that the pilots of some planes would have an inherent advantage because the yoke or spade grip allows the full application of both hands to the control column. These planes (P-38 and all British fighters) could be modelled to give a full 100 lb of elevator force.

The next point would be €˜left-hand control inputs€ (LHCI). By this I mean all the things that we do in the virtual cockpit with the left hand. This includes throttle, trim, propeller, flaps, mixture, supercharger, etc. What I suggest is that if the player is doing anything that requires a LHCI, the available stick force should drop to the original 50 lb. If you€re adjusting your elevator trim in a dive as you furiously yank back on the stick, then you€re furiously yankin€ with only your right arm. Same goes for prop pitch, throttle, supercharger, etc. The basic idea is to model the advantage of using both arms on the stick, and the control disadvantages that this would bring.

The next part of it is the modelling of trim. I would model this so that it takes time to apply. I don€t mean the delayed trim we had a few patches ago (eeeyyuuch!) but rather a trim adjustment that is applied immediately but slowly, and that when you stop applying the input, it stops. The point here is that trim took time to apply, and those with trim mapped to a rotary shouldn€t be able to just dial up 100 % nose-up trim in less than a second to save themselves. It should take time, and all the time that the virtual pilot is turning the virtual trim wheel (i.e., all the time you€re holding the button down), the maximum stick force available to your pilot is 50 lb.

Flaps should be modelled the same way. For those planes where the flaps had to be wound down by hand, the application of flaps should take time. For those planes where flap settings were done by moving a lever, that could be done nearly instantaneously.

Another layer to this way of modelling control inputs would be to separate each LHCI from all the other LHCIs. In other words, if you€re moving the throttle, you can€t adjust your supercharger: not enough hands, mum. Similarly, if you€re selecting the supercharger gear, you can€t deploy flaps, or adjust radiators, or trim, or adjust prop pitch. If you€re adjusting prop pitch, you can€t adjust the throttle, unless you€re flying a plane with pitch control on the end of the throttle (i.e., Bf109G).

The reason I advocate this sort of modelling of control inputs is because it doesn€t actually increase the complexity of the game playing experience. We already control all of these inputs now. What it does instead is force the player to think ahead and to compromise between the various things that the pilot can do at any given moment because €" unlike now €" the poor bastage can€t do everything at once. It would also add a layer of differentiation between planes. I€ve already mentioned how a P-38 jockey might apply 100 lb where nearly everybody else is limited to 80 lb. But there would also be the Fw190A drivers who would actually get the advantages of the Kommandogerrat, or the Bf109G drivers who could adjust prop pitch with the thumb of their virtual left hand. P-38 pilot can€t do that, and neither can a Spit. This would help to emphasise the differences between planes.

It would also stop the exploits of massive, rapid changes in trim, or of rapid deployment of combat flaps where in reality it would€ve taken time. Not only would it have taken time, but I would bet that a Bf109 pilot with a Mustang on his tail, in that borderline speed zone of about 300 mph, would have had to think hard about whether he was going to use both hands on the stick, or take one hand off to wind down some flap, or dial in some elevator trim€¦

Decisions, decisions. I think it would make for good game play.


The final thread to this bow is pilot-induced engine damage. In the game at the moment, it€s nearly impossible to inadvertently damage any engine except the DB605s with MW50. To damage any other engine except the jets, you have to run the sucker at max power until it overheats, then keep running it until it squeals. This is wrong. For example, the P-47s had a lot of problems with pilots accidentally applying settings that damaged the engine, and this wasn€t satisfactorily sorted out until they got a unilever control system. This is not modelled. I€m sure that Merlins and other engines didn€t like having the throttle rammed from idle to WEP in no time flat. I don€t know what the effects of this might have been (flooding, engine cut, damage, plug fouling, ???), but I doubt it was good practice. The point I€m making is that the player suffers no penalty for poor engine management unless they run an overheating engine so long that it fries. This can€t be right. Neither can it be right that the engines can be run at WEP on every flight with no detrimental effect.

I think engine damage and failure as a result of poor engine management should be modelled. I know that random failure has been discussed before, and I€m not advocating that. What I would suggest instead is a log of what each pilot does in terms of engine management: boost applied and for how long, prop revs, supercharger gear, rapid throttle movement, etc. On the basis of each player€s good (or bad) engine management, a simple probability will be constantly calculated and updated. This probability is the likelihood that you will suffer an engine problem at any time on any particular flight. For example, if my virtual fighter pilot (John Doe) flies with the pedal to the metal and yanks on the throttle like it€s the control column, and revs the plane at 100 % even in the cruise, then John Doe will have a higher probability of the engine randomly quitting than my virtual bomber pilot, Gladys, who flies like the old lady she is.

Better still, because your flying behaviour only affects you and your probability of engine problems, this feature could easily follow you on-line. If you€re ham fisted, you will pay, because every plane you select has been abused by notional pilots who fly exactly like YOU. Good luck. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Just some ideas.

Cheers,
Ratsack

402Cdn.Valkyrie
03-01-2006, 05:17 AM
Well first of i'll have so say good post, because these suggestions are very good, and something like it have been talked about times before. I very much like the idea that we can only do that many things at the time.

Just a few things... The idea about the stick force, say a plane like the Spitfire has the problem that because of its special wings the Ailerons would as good as lock up at high speeds, and on the first models the ailerons flaps themself with swell up and this would decrease the controleffect even more. So even whit the use of both hands the pilots had a hard time rolling. On the other hand the spit always had very light elevators, at all speeds; so it would only take a very light touch to use the elevator but you would have wrestle with the stick to roll.
The BF109 had something else, the way the air travled down its fuselage would cause its elevators to lock at high speeds, and because of its small cockpit its pilots could not apply full force to the stick.
This is very hard to model, because when we are sitting in our rooms, we dont have trouble moving our joysticks to full force.

This would be very hard to apply to a game so it would work correctly!

-----

About the engine failure/damage, say an engine like the Merlin... The first models had problems with bad parts, this was fixed by taking random engines of the assembly line and running them at full power, and i mean full power... until they gave up and died.

"Early Merlins were considered to be rather unreliable, but their importance was too great for this to be left alone. Rolls soon introduced a superb quality control program to address this. The program consisted of taking random engines right off the end of assembly line and running them continuously at full power until they broke. They were then disassembled to find out which part had failed, and that part was redesigned to be stronger. After two years of this the Merlin matured into one of the most reliable aero engines in the world, and could be run at full power for entire eight hour bombing missions without complaint.""

So the engine damage idea is good but would have to have quite some programming for all the kind of engines we have in this game; and for sure will have in BoB and expansions.
Now how German engine and the like act i dont know, but i'm sure some people here do!

Just some input from me... i'm all for things like this but one thing is talking about them another is getting them done, even for a guy like Oleg.
Game engines have limits!

Ratsack
03-02-2006, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by 402Cdn.Valkyrie:
Well first of i'll have so say good post, because these suggestions are very good, and something like it have been talked about times before. I very much like the idea that we can only do that many things at the time.

Just a few things... The idea about the stick force, say a plane like the Spitfire has the problem that because of its special wings the Ailerons would as good as lock up at high speeds, and on the first models the ailerons flaps themself with swell up and this would decrease the controleffect even more. So even whit the use of both hands the pilots had a hard time rolling. On the other hand the spit always had very light elevators, at all speeds; so it would only take a very light touch to use the elevator but you would have wrestle with the stick to roll.
The BF109 had something else, the way the air travled down its fuselage would cause its elevators to lock at high speeds, and because of its small cockpit its pilots could not apply full force to the stick.
This is very hard to model, because when we are sitting in our rooms, we dont have trouble moving our joysticks to full force.

This would be very hard to apply to a game so it would work correctly!

-----

About the engine failure/damage, say an engine like the Merlin... The first models had problems with bad parts, this was fixed by taking random engines of the assembly line and running them at full power, and i mean full power... until they gave up and died.

"Early Merlins were considered to be rather unreliable, but their importance was too great for this to be left alone. Rolls soon introduced a superb quality control program to address this. The program consisted of taking random engines right off the end of assembly line and running them continuously at full power until they broke. They were then disassembled to find out which part had failed, and that part was redesigned to be stronger. After two years of this the Merlin matured into one of the most reliable aero engines in the world, and could be run at full power for entire eight hour bombing missions without complaint.""

So the engine damage idea is good but would have to have quite some programming for all the kind of engines we have in this game; and for sure will have in BoB and expansions.
Now how German engine and the like act i dont know, but i'm sure some people here do!

Just some input from me... i'm all for things like this but one thing is talking about them another is getting them done, even for a guy like Oleg.
Game engines have limits!

I don't agree it would be hard to implement properly. We already have the heavy ailerons of the Spit modelled in the game. It is modelled by saying that the pilot has a maximum force of X lbs available, but the ailerons at this speed require 2X to get full deflection.

What I'm saying is that we leave untouched the principle by which control forces are modelled, and instead add some differentiation to how the stick forces are applied in the virtual cockpit.

Regarding engine damage, I just used the Merlin as an example. I'm not saying it should have good or bad characteristics, and I have no specific information suggestiong there's a problem with it. I'm suggesting that we could model a failure rate for engines - and even for airframes - based on a probability that is weighted by the way the player mistreats his or her planes.

cheers, and thanks for the comments,
Ratsack

msalama
03-02-2006, 02:56 AM
There€s been some discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Some "discussion" indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Great suggestions BTW.

Kurfurst__
03-02-2006, 04:44 AM
Good suggestions.

On control forces, there should be definietely a way to be a "two hander" (TH) on the stick. The best way I can think of is that there would be two available stickforce modelled for the controls, one handed (40-50 lbs for the elevators and ca25lbs for the ailerons), and two-handed (w. apprx. double the force in both directions).

To use TH mode, a button must be pressed and be kept so, which would

a, Increase available stick force for TH values
b, Disable all non-stick controls while the button is pressed

There should be a "run up" of max force, ie. not instant 50-> 100 lbs hopping. Such sudden increase would likely cause structural problems anyway.

The TH mode is rather vital to have, the absence of it puts the 'heavy control's planes that we have plenty of, ie. P-38, Spit (ailerons), 109 (elevator) and so on, into disadvantage because we cant apply the full force these planes were designed to operate at.. and given that both premiere fighters of BoB, the Spit and 109 will definietely need such help from the other hand (for roll/pitch), it's imperative to have such thing modelled.


As for engines go, there is a lot of room for growth... afaik BoB will introduce engine wear, the program keeps track of engine wear and the engine will develop less power after some missions if abused too much. We will have to get some definietive improvement the way coolant and oil temperatures, overheats and WEP time is modelled. That means, proper drag and cooling effiency for radiator flap positions, no instant engine death after running 1-min plus over defined WEP limit - there would be increased engine wear of course. Overcooling was needed to be avoided as well in IRL, ie. by closing rads b4 diving.

Next, the current sim has complete absance of overrevving, overboosting effects. Practically every plane has a "Kommandogereat", whereas with most planes without single-lever systems, the pilot had to follow precise order and ratio of boost/rpm manipulation, and carefully avoid situation when he would have too much boost for low RPMs, thus rpm was needed to be increased first, followed by boost throttle increase. Otherwise engine damage or failure may occur, this being the reason for eventually everyone favouring single lever systems because of their faster reaction time and freeing up the pilots attention to more important things.

Overrevving needs to be adressed, too, right now, very little damage from it... this is important for all planes, ie. fixed/two pitch spits/hurris, 109E if it will have manual pitch only. The 'prop pitch cheat' needs to be prevented as well, which would be rather simple. The current sim imho does not models propeller mach number, which is probably why we get more power bz increasing RPM with mPP, whereas in real life, given the fixed reduction gear ratio, this would only lead to the blade tips exceeding Mach number, with sharp decrease of prop effiency (in the end, thrust), and possible prop damage.

Ratsack
03-02-2006, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Good suggestions.

On control forces, there should be definietely a way to be a "two hander" (TH) on the stick. The best way I can think of is that there would be two available stickforce modelled for the controls, one handed (40-50 lbs for the elevators and ca25lbs for the ailerons), and two-handed (w. apprx. double the force in both directions).

To use TH mode, a button must be pressed and be kept so, which would

a, Increase available stick force for TH values
b, Disable all non-stick controls while the button is pressed

There should be a "run up" of max force, ie. not instant 50-> 100 lbs hopping. Such sudden increase would likely cause structural problems anyway.

The TH mode is rather vital to have, the absence of it puts the 'heavy control's planes that we have plenty of, ie. P-38, Spit (ailerons), 109 (elevator) and so on, into disadvantage because we cant apply the full force these planes were designed to operate at.. and given that both premiere fighters of BoB, the Spit and 109 will definietely need such help from the other hand (for roll/pitch), it's imperative to have such thing modelled.


As for engines go, there is a lot of room for growth... afaik BoB will introduce engine wear, the program keeps track of engine wear and the engine will develop less power after some missions if abused too much. We will have to get some definietive improvement the way coolant and oil temperatures, overheats and WEP time is modelled. That means, proper drag and cooling effiency for radiator flap positions, no instant engine death after running 1-min plus over defined WEP limit - there would be increased engine wear of course. Overcooling was needed to be avoided as well in IRL, ie. by closing rads b4 diving.

Next, the current sim has complete absance of overrevving, overboosting effects. Practically every plane has a "Kommandogereat", whereas with most planes without single-lever systems, the pilot had to follow precise order and ratio of boost/rpm manipulation, and carefully avoid situation when he would have too much boost for low RPMs, thus rpm was needed to be increased first, followed by boost throttle increase. Otherwise engine damage or failure may occur, this being the reason for eventually everyone favouring single lever systems because of their faster reaction time and freeing up the pilots attention to more important things.

Overrevving needs to be adressed, too, right now, very little damage from it... this is important for all planes, ie. fixed/two pitch spits/hurris, 109E if it will have manual pitch only. The 'prop pitch cheat' needs to be prevented as well, which would be rather simple. The current sim imho does not models propeller mach number, which is probably why we get more power bz increasing RPM with mPP, whereas in real life, given the fixed reduction gear ratio, this would only lead to the blade tips exceeding Mach number, with sharp decrease of prop effiency (in the end, thrust), and possible prop damage.

I thought my suggestion regarding stick inputs is simpler. In my model, you have two-handed force by default, until you apply another control input. As soon as that happens, you revert to one-handed force.

That said, your suggestion would work, too.

Regarding what you've said about engine wear, I agree. Supersonic prop tips, over revving, over-boost at low rpm, etc. These stuff-ups should all be modelled if the physics engine can handle it.

My instinct for the game at the moment is that it places too much store on pushing the plane right to the edge, every time. This is fine, but there should be a penalty for thrashing the living cr@p out of your aeroplane.

cheers,
Ratsack

Sturm_Williger
03-02-2006, 08:09 AM
All excellent ideas here.

I particularly like the idea of losing 2H forces as soon as you do something with the left hand. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Bartolomeo_ita
03-02-2006, 09:09 AM
i really hope BoB won't be an "arcade sim" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

up at all!

realistic engine management ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

OldMan____
03-02-2006, 09:42 AM
I think Kurf Idea is better because i know exactly when force will chance. Otherwise you might be making a pull in stickk that with single hand is moderated.. then the timeslice when the TH force is disabled finished,, you will instantly get 2Hforce.. and probably stall.


I think single hand shoudl be standard and two hand be a special case.

This will also help a lot planes with light controls, like FW and p51. Since they will be able to use any controls while still developing great control.

Sturm_Williger
03-02-2006, 10:05 AM
Ok, yes, it makes more sense expressed like that.

Cheers, OldMan

JG4_Helofly
03-02-2006, 10:10 AM
This is a very good idea. Maybe it could be merged with pilot fatigue. So if you are pulling for some turns with full energy on the stick the pilot will become tired and he can not pull at 100% on the stick. The same with high g manoeuvres.

OldMan____
03-02-2006, 11:05 AM
This type of idea must be summarized ina compreensive explanation, sent to Oleg along with pointer to discussion inforums about it to show how these are supported by the players.

Viper2005_
03-02-2006, 01:17 PM
As for doing several things at once, I think that there should be a queue since that's how it works IRL.

I might get given a squawk and a pressure setting; I can't set them both at once because I don't have enough hands, so set them one after the other, generally whilst reading back the instructions to make sure I've got them right.

The point is that I know what I'm doing and so one action follows immediately after the other.

This would be much harder to do in game since I can't see where my hands are, and those little messages at the side of the screen are something of an immersion killer...

I therefore suggest that in BoB the pilot be given a queue of up to 5 actions which he would then carry out as quickly as possible in the order those commands are input, with the caveat that primary flight controls always take precedence.

So I might ask him to drop the flaps, drop the gear, turn on the landing lights and open the radiator shutters.

If I'm hands free (ie I've trimmed the aeroplane out and am applying no stick forces) then the pilot would be free to use both hands to get stuff done. If I apply stick force, since the stick is a primary flight control, he should drop whatever he's doing with his right hand and fly the aeroplane.

If I try to open the throttle, he should again drop whatever he's doing with his left hand and fly the aeroplane.

If I talk on the radio, he should have to hit the push to talk button, which might require him to put his hand on the stick or throttle (as the case may be).

Once the primary flight controls have been attended to, he should go back to what he was doing before the interruption (ie lowering the gear).

The beauty of this approach is that it would stop people from exploiting macros to gain an unrealistic advantage, whilst still allowing organised pilots to perform tasks efficiently.

Another thing I'd like to see is realistic engine handling by this "virtual pilot".

If I'm flying in the circuit in an aeroplane with a constant speed or variable pitch airscrew and I need to execute a missed approach then before opening the throttle the pilot should have to select an appropriate rpm/pitch setting in order to avoid engine damage.

Since most people don't have enough throttle axies for this the simplest solution is to have the virtual pilot do it for you if you forget. Sensible pilots would follow the check list and set rpm on downwind (using the keyboard). The virtual pilot would sort this out ASAP, so that by the time you turn final your rpm is as required for a missed approach, and therefore if you need to go around, you can just open the throttle.

The same rules would apply to the mixture.

This would be very important in combat since it would allow people to be configured for cruising flight and yet to respond effectively to a bounce despite only having one throttle axis.

You'd just slam your throttle forward. Meanwhile your virtual pilot would set mixture rich, rpm to maximum and then open the throttle. This only takes half a second or so, but it can make a big difference.

The better prepared fighter pilot, with his mixture and rpm as required for combat just slams open his throttle and goes.

Of course cruising around like that increases fuel burn and engine wear (on which topic see also:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m...371061814#5371061814 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/2601067714/r/5371061814#5371061814) )

This sort of thing would require people to take more care when flying to control cockpit workload, which is a very important consideration IRL; overload is a real killer!

That's my tuppence anyway.

JG4_Helofly
03-02-2006, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
This type of idea must be summarized ina compreensive explanation, sent to Oleg along with pointer to discussion inforums about it to show how these are supported by the players.

Yes. We could also open a discussion about such ideas, summarize the most important and send this to Oleg.

For me the most important things are:
1. right energy management for all planes and no balancing or such stupid things. As realistic as possible.

2. Pilot fatigue for more realisme in dogfights ( some planes have advantages, fw 190 for exemple)

3. TH on stick
.
.
.
.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-03-2006, 12:17 AM
I wont agree, pilots maybe could use 2 hands, but they were tiring! Look at few guncams, and u will see that aircrafts arent turning really much, that mean that pilots couldnt push their stick so much. Just try go to gym, and keep pulling a 25kg(50lbs) with both hands for 2 minutes, and u will seehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 25kg is a lot, 50kg is reeaaaaaaaaly much, pilots arent machines they are tiring, like we, other humanshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I would only agree of this feature, if there would be implemented fatigue of pilot, so aircraft with real light stick would get their another adanvtage (like FW190).

Jetbuff
03-03-2006, 02:10 AM
Programmatically speaking, Kurfurst's suggestion is very elegant.

I would refine either suggestion it to include the following: Any extra input outside of the stick itself (trigger/stick inputs) is not blocked but gradually deteriorates the force applied on the stick back towards one-handed inputs. The reason I suggest this is people might find 'blocked' inputs very frustrating and harder to accept than lessened stick force.


The ultimate addition imo though would be degradation in the available stick force (single or double-handed) with time and g-load. 'Stick in your crotch' flying should not be sustainable for ever and a day. Of course planes with reclined seats or G-suits should have an advantage. (190, 109, later USAAF)

Codex1971
03-03-2006, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
I wont agree, pilots maybe could use 2 hands, but they were tiring! Look at few guncams, and u will see that aircrafts arent turning really much, that mean that pilots couldnt push their stick so much. Just try go to gym, and keep pulling a 25kg(50lbs) with both hands for 2 minutes, and u will seehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 25kg is a lot, 50kg is reeaaaaaaaaly much, pilots arent machines they are tiring, like we, other humanshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I would only agree of this feature, if there would be implemented fatigue of pilot, so aircraft with real light stick would get their another adanvtage (like FW190).

I agree with this point...you could model a fatigue factor for the pilot just like some FPS have (ala Day Of Defeat - HL mod) plus...



SimHQ Article...Page 2
Energy Management: Picking The Right Airplane For The Job

by Leon "Badboy" Smith

In W.W.II, for example, speed was far more valuable to real pilots than it is to simulator pilots. A real pilot would no doubt have found a turning engagement both physically and mentally draining, due to the mix of extreme concentration, physical exertion, heart pounding amounts of adrenaline, all tinged with varying degrees of fear! No doubt that was a large factor in explaining why turning engagements were the exception rather than the rule. Around 80% of shoot downs involved the element of surprise, high speed, 1g attacks. In contrast, simulator pilots can enjoy the challenge of a high g dogfight with their flight stick in one hand and a beer in the other. The price of defeat? Nothing more than a mildly bruised ego and a few more practice sessions before the next match. If you really wanted to live, the P-51, Fw-190 and other fast aircraft are exactly the aircraft to choose!

Codex1971
03-03-2006, 02:52 AM
Kurfurst's engine wear idea is something I have been thinking about for ages. I was thinking that an engines life could be tracked via the players profile. What would happen if your plane was destroyed? Would you get a "fresh" engine? Would this model apply to online flying? If it did apply to online flying I don't think you'll see pilots just slaming the throttle open as soon as they spawn and cutting accross the airfield trying to get up as quickly as they can.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Ratsack
03-04-2006, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by OldMan____:
I think Kurf Idea is better because i know exactly when force will chance. Otherwise you might be making a pull in stickk that with single hand is moderated.. then the timeslice when the TH force is disabled finished,, you will instantly get 2Hforce.. and probably stall.


.


On reflection, I agree. It would probably cause stalling.

Yep. A button for two-handed force that blocks all non-stick inputs is the better option.

I also really like the idea of modelling exhaustion as a player continues to yank on the stick. I would go further and decrease G tolerance the longer a fight continues, if this isn't already done.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
03-04-2006, 08:22 AM
Comment by Lordbutter in another thread:

'why cant planes that flaps had to be rasied/lowered manually have this feature? We have raise/lower gear. Why not raise/lower flaps. It would give planes that had automated flaps thier advantage.'


Not a bad idea in principle.

Ratsack

danjama
03-05-2006, 06:23 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

joeap
03-06-2006, 10:28 AM
I approve of this thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

arjisme
03-06-2006, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
I also really like the idea of modelling exhaustion as a player continues to yank on the stick. I would go further and decrease G tolerance the longer a fight continues, if this isn't already done. Agreed. I think it would be great to have pilot fatigue increase proportional to the G's pulled during maneuvering. Stay in the 1-2 G range, fatigue doesn't set in too fast. Start going into 3+ G's and you start to fatigue faster -- the higher the G's, the faster the fatigue. I also think pilots should be able to recover fatigue by flying at 1 G for a while.

The big difficulty that I see with this, though, is how to program the AI to take fatigue into account. The code would need to model decision making about when to pull high G maneuvers and when to conserve fatigue.

Genie-
03-07-2006, 12:53 AM
I must say that all of those suggestions are very good and I would like to see them implemented. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif It would be very nice if BoB would actualy be one step closer to the real thing and not one step closer to Crimson Skies with nicer graphics...

Ratsack
03-10-2006, 03:47 PM
*bump*

JS312RAF
03-10-2006, 04:06 PM
marvellous idea! gj!
ill sign it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

danjama
03-10-2006, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Genie-:
I must say that all of those suggestions are very good and I would like to see them implemented. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif It would be very nice if BoB would actualy be one step closer to the real thing and not one step closer to Crimson Skies with nicer graphics...

More realism definately. I want to actually start up my Spitfire!!!

Gnasha
03-12-2006, 03:37 PM
Although I grant you it's ultra realistic modelling engine wear I would have to argue the case that it is a particularly expensive use of CPU cycles for little tangible gain. IRL engine swap outs and rebuilds were commonplace in "most" theatres.

Personally until SMP and MPP support is available I'd rather see CPU cycles used on more intelligent AI. At the mo' single CPU code IMO is better used elsewhere.

Gnasha
03-12-2006, 03:38 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Ratsack
03-13-2006, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Gnasha:
... I would have to argue the case that it is a particularly expensive use of CPU cycles for little tangible gain.

G'day Gnasha,

Sorry to truncate your post, but I wanted to highlight the premise around which the rest of your argument pivots. I don't see why this need be very CPU intensive at all. The pilot's actions as he uses / abuses the motor and airframe can just be logged as part of the event log. The calculation of the future failure rate could be calculated post mission. The newly calculated probability of engine failure could then be applied to the next mission. Rinse and repeat.

While I whole-heartedly agree that some AI improvements are in order, I don't agree that it's an either / or situation.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
03-20-2006, 07:26 PM
Bump

NonWonderDog
03-21-2006, 12:20 AM
I don't actually like this idea, unless we can see an actual hand moving about the cockpit. Even then it would be pretty annoying.

Queueing actions wouldn't be too bad, but there wouldn't be any way to override the queue. I can't think of any examples, but I know I would be annoyed pretty often.

The 1/2-handed stick force thing would be near impossible to make usable. Imagine having to ease off the stick in a turn in order to keep the same turn rate just because you let go of the throttle...

Even with a button to toggle two-handed stick pulls (which would just seem completely inelegant and incongruous), it would be hard to figure out what to do when you push that button. Would you have to suddenly move the stick to 1/2 its deflection when you push the button? Or would you have to time your stick movements to the pre-programmed time it takes to move your virtual hand? Would this be a skill that would have to be learned in order to be competative?


I say that this kind of stuff is just taking things overboard. It doesn't add anything real to the game; things like this are just apparent realism that require the simmer to learn unrealistic actions in order to compensate. The way the system is now, we can use the joystick much like it were the joystick on the actual plane. I'm not in favor of anything that destroys that illusion.