Damage models, survivability...

[Siggi]

I've been thinking about how I've yet to see a plane I'm attacking break up in mid-air. Then hearing about it is actually possible in the game, just very unlikely/rare. Then hearing about Fortiesboy's mods which make it more likely.

So I'm assuming if it's made more likely for the AI it'll be more likely to happen to the player. And maybe that's why the planes have been made out of concrete, as it were?

But...IF the AI's maximun range to open fire is made more realistic, and IF one then gets an AI on one's tail and takes a good burst...shouldn't one expect to die right there and then?

And in that case, if one gets a good close-range burst into an AI, shouldn't one expect to see it fold up more often than not?

Are we trading realism for personal survivability?

"Ok, I have to stick to this AI like glue, because they need at least half a mag usually before they properly go down and I can make a clean claim. Which means I may have to tolerate his wingie on my tail, giving me a good pasting too...but that's ok, my plane is just as tough as the AI's..."

Trade that for...

"Get on his tail, go for one good close burst, then get the hell out of dodge before I take one good close burst that'll fold me up like a piece of paper..."

I don't want the planes to be unrealistically frail, but neither do I want them to be unrealistically robust (as appears to be the case currently). I just want them to be as realistic as possible, and for that to cut both ways.

And for it to be (another) workshop option, so players can choose to have it as they like it.

Plane Strength:
Weak.
Normal (realistic).
Strong (as current).

What does everyone else think? Planes too strong currently? Or just right?

 

[Winder]

I've been thinking about how I've yet to see a plane I'm attacking break up in mid-air. Then hearing about it is actually possible in the game, just very unlikely/rare. Then hearing about Fortiesboy's mods which make it more likely.

So I'm assuming if it's made more likely for the AI it'll be more likely to happen to the player. And maybe that's why the planes have been made out of concrete, as it were?

But...IF the AI's maximun range to open fire is made more realistic, and IF one then gets an AI on one's tail and takes a good burst...shouldn't one expect to die right there and then?

And in that case, if one gets a good close-range burst into an AI, shouldn't one expect to see it fold up more often than not?

Are we trading realism for personal survivability?

"Ok, I have to stick to this AI like glue, because they need at least half a mag usually before they properly go down and I can make a clean claim. Which means I may have to tolerate his wingie on my tail, giving me a good pasting too...but that's ok, my plane is just as tough as the AI's..."

Trade that for...

"Get on his tail, go for one good close burst, then get the hell out of dodge before I take one good close burst that'll fold me up like a piece of paper..."

I don't want the planes to be unrealistically frail, but neither do I want them to be unrealistically robust (as appears to be the case currently). I just want them to be as realistic as possible, and for that to cut both ways.

And for it to be (another) workshop option, so players can choose to have it as they like it.

Plane Strength:
Weak.
Normal (realistic).
Strong (as current).

What does everyone else think? Planes too strong currently? Or just right?

Its a long and hard road you are about to embark on in this thread and its very multi faceted...here is what I believe is the main facet of the dilemma:

Because you are playing in a sim most players do not try to protect their virtual selves or indeed have any of the self preservation senses that prevails when a man is facing possible death....
If we make the craft easier to kill then we will have higher kill claims that could border on ludicrous or simply too easy to become MvR because most foks are gungho... they aint gonna die...this is probably just as well lol.

This lack of the need for self preservation is the biggest single issue facing any realistic sim - players are simply not playing with their lives......yet everyone wants to be MvR kill wise...

Finally the option is there in workshops to boost your weapoins effectiveness try strongest - you will see craft break up....so no not plane strength but the converse - bullet strength - so pointless adding in more settings...


HTH


WM

 

[Dej]

You underestimate your own work, Winder.

This sim more than any other has me investing in my 'virtual self'. I've definitely stopped being 'gung-ho' with my main and am actually giving him a rest because I was becoming paranoid about losing him!

As for machines breaking up, Winder's correct (of course) ramping up bullet strength does the job... it's not DiD, but it's certainly fun and I don't mind indulging in a little arcade flying to let off steam ;-)

 

[Siggi]

Its a long and hard road you are about to embark on in this thread and its very multi faceted...here is what I believe is the main facet of the dilemma:

Because you are playing in a sim most players do not try to protect their virtual selves or indeed have any of the self preservation senses that prevails when a man is facing possible death....
If we make the craft easier to kill then we will have higher kill claims that could border on ludicrous or simply too easy to become MvR because most foks are gungho... they aint gonna die...this is probably just as well lol.

This lack of the need for self preservation is the biggest single issue facing any realistic sim - players are simply not playing with their lives......yet everyone wants to be MvR kill wise...

Finally the option is there in workshops to boost your weapoins effectiveness try strongest - you will see craft break up....so no not plane strength but the converse - bullet strength - so pointless adding in more settings...


HTH


WM

But if the AI craft die more easily so will the player's? And then balance is maintained. Gung-ho behaviour will be met with death, so MvR type records would be just as hard to attain.

The problem with adjusting bullet-strength is it allows for more kills without allowing for the player's quicker death. Personally I don't want that kind of arcade solution.

If I know my plane can break up after a good number of hits I will be far less likely to lead my flight of three into a furball with six hun. But currently I know my odds are excellent. I can take gross liberties. Sure, I have to paste the bejesus out of a target to put him down quickly enough to see him crash and get the claim (as opposed to killing him just the same but see him go porpoising or shallow-diving miles away where he'll go down eventually but I can make NO realistic claim), but conversely I know I can take a good pasting too because nine times out of ten the worst that'll happen is I have to force-land.

The combat skill should be focused on getting a good burst in for a kill, but having to avoid the same and dying. I want to really sweat it if I've got a hun on my tail, knowing one good burst into me is going to potentially so weaken my plane the next hard turn might shed a wing or lose the rear fuselage. The tactic then becomes primarily one of keeping one's tail clear BEFORE engaging an enemy, not engaging an enemy with relative impunity, knowing one's plane can withstand a right licking.

 

[Siggi]

In actual fact Winder, is it possible to make both the player's bullets AND the AI's bullets stronger? Seems to me that would achieve the same result I'm looking for.

 

[Siggi]

You underestimate your own work, Winder.

This sim more than any other has me investing in my 'virtual self'. I've definitely stopped being 'gung-ho' with my main and am actually giving him a rest because I was becoming paranoid about losing him!

As for machines breaking up, Winder's correct (of course) ramping up bullet strength does the job... it's not DiD, but it's certainly fun and I don't mind indulging in a little arcade flying to let off steam ;-)

Ain't that the truth! I already mourn every hour I lose with the death or capture of a DiD pilot.

 

[Winder]

But if the AI craft die more easily so will the player's? And then balance is maintained. Gung-ho behaviour will be met with death, so MvR type records would be just as hard to attain.

The problem with adjusting bullet-strength is it allows for more kills without allowing for the player's quicker death. Personally I don't want that kind of arcade solution.

If I know my plane can break up after a good number of hits I will be far less likely to lead my flight of three into a furball with six hun. But currently I know my odds are excellent. I can take gross liberties. Sure, I have to paste the bejesus out of a target to put him down quickly enough to see him crash and get the claim (as opposed to killing him just the same but see him go porpoising or shallow-diving miles away where he'll go down eventually but I can make NO realistic claim), but conversely I know I can take a good pasting too because nine times out of ten the worst that'll happen is I have to force-land.

The combat skill should be focussed on getting a good burst in for a kill, but having to avoid the same and dying. I want to really sweat it if I've got a hun on my tail, knowing one good burst into me is going to potentially so weaken my plane the next hard turn might shed a wing or lose the rear fuselage. The tactic then becomes primarily one of keeping one's tail clear BEFORE engaging an enemy, not engaging an enemy with relative impunity, knowing one's plane can withstand a right licking.

Oh O.K do you feel your craft is too strong as well?
I thought you were simply wanting to see AI/enemy craft collapse easier...

Sure we can make all craft weaker and yes that will then make you more vulnerable too....

But its not a simple fix as it requires multiple DM models for each craft to be variable so no promises at all.

WM

 

[Creaghorn]

hi,
i totally agree with winder.
on one hand everbody wants relaism as accurate as possible, on the other hand people are moaning about the sim beeing too tough. there is a reason why somebody was called an ace with five kills. there is also a reason why so few of the aces survived. They had only one chance. not beeing able to simply create a new pilot when dead. period. so they flew like one who had only one chance. How would one play this sim, if it would destroy itself after the pilot is dead? i think with a LOT of more caution. with a LOT of fewer kills and with the better judgement of when to avoid a fight. IMHO it is much more realistic to have 300 flying hours and 3 kills, instead of having 15 flying hours and 10 kills. This is why so many fights were inconclusive. So one flights this sim, knowing deep inside it's not about to live or not to live, so he is making actions, or entering fights he would never do in RL, probably not even noticing it, and then wondering why the gun range of AI is to accurate, why planes don't fell apart all the times...
maybe MvR had so much ripped off victims because he was MvR. Because he had a fighting spirit like a samurai with the sense to break off the fight. 99,99% were not like him, or when they were, they didn't survive quite too long. I consider myself as one of the 99%. One could punish himself with, when the character dies, to not be allowed to create a new one for a week or so. i think then one would fly like one who wants to survive and not just talking about beeing one, and playing kamikaze. then any plane one downs would be celebrated, and then the term ace has a meaning.
my two € cents.

creaghorn

 

[Siggi]

Oh O.K do you feel your craft is too strong as well?
I thought you were simply wanting to see AI/enemy craft collapse easier...

Sure we can make all craft weaker and yes that will then make you more vulnerable too....

But its not a simple fix as it requires multiple DM models for each craft to be variable so no promises at all.

WM

Absolutely. The AI has no cheat (which is good), my plane is just as strong as theirs. I want to see both realistically fragile (ie, that they will break up under fire, or as a result of stressful maneouvering after taking fire, far more often than is currently the case).

I appreciate what you say about multiple DM models. Would an easier solution be as I've mentioned above, to simply increase the power of bullets for both AI and player?

Or, regarding multiple DM models, would these be text-files you're talking about, or actual graphical models? If text-files, I'd be more than happy to do the grunt work under your direction.

 

[Siggi]

hi,
i totally agree with winder.
on one hand everbody wants relaism as accurate as possible, on the other hand people are moaning about the sim beeing too tough. there is a reason why somebody was called an ace with five kills. there is also a reason why so few of the aces survived. They had only one chance. not beeing able to simply create a new pilot when dead. period. so they flew like one who had only one chance. How would one play this sim, if it would destroy itself after the pilot is dead? i think with a LOT of more caution. with a LOT of fewer kills and with the better judgement of when to avoid a fight. IMHO it is much more realistic to have 300 flying hours and 3 kills, instead of having 15 flying hours and 10 kills. This is why so many fights were inconclusive. So one flights this sim, knowing deep inside it's not about to live or not to live, so he is making actions, or entering fights he would never do in RL, probably not even noticing it, and then wondering why the gun range of AI is to accurate, why planes don't fell apart all the times...
maybe MvR had so much ripped off victims because he was MvR. Because he had a fighting spirit like a samurai with the sense to break off the fight. 99,99% were not like him, or when they were, they didn't survive quite too long. I consider myself as one of the 99%. One could punish himself with, when the character dies, to not be allowed to create a new one for a week or so. i think then one would fly like one who wants to survive and not just talking about beeing one, and playing kamikaze. then any plane one downs would be celebrated, and then the term ace has a meaning.
my two € cents.

creaghorn

I can honestly say, that after I've put a good few hours of real-time flying into a DiD character, I become extremely conservative. I remember very well my time with RB2-3D, that I would actually go to bed quite depressed when I lost a good pilot (I'm talking one into which I'd put weeks of real time). My final one was one with 90 kills, which took me a number of months in real time, a mission a day on average. When he died I was done and never flew RB2 again. I figured that was finally it, I'd extracted all I could from that sim. The war ended for me at that point.

 

[cpirrmann]

Quite true WM. Most SURVIVING pilots or more specifically, those who served the entire war, didn't have that many kills. Some only 5 or 6.

Siggi; Like WM said, it's a slippery slope. AI, even at it's best, is vastly inferior to HI (Human Intelligence...sometimes loosely applied). Anyway, that must be compensated for in some fashion to keep the game challenging and somewhat realistic. Do you do it with damage and gunnery or performance or both?

Now, we've got people wanting the AI gunnery range and accuracy reduced. Next we want hits to destroy not just damage. Do we apply the same to both AI and player? Who will we hear from first when their 16.5 hour pilot dies because the first bullets that hit his plane sliced through the spars and caused his wings to fold up?

You're thinking in the right way in at least positing that you want the effects to cut both ways, but to what end? For many, the focus seems to be on the action, the combat, and that's OK. For my part, and I'm speaking only for myself, I think the devs intended the immersive experience to include the tedium and frustration as well. It wasn't all zooming through enemy formations wth your hair on fire, chopping them up with your twin mg's. I'm not criticizing anybody's taste, just adding my own perspective.

I get frustrated too, knowing I've only got one gun, limited ammo and I keep pouring it into this EIII that keeps on flying.
Then I remember several key things.
1. The usual reasoning that with the skeletal framework of these planes, hitting something vital other than the pilot, or engine is very rare.
2. My gunnery isn't that good no matter what I think.
3. My FPS is low which makes targeting and leading even more inaccurate.
4. Hopefully, like me, the enemy AI is doing all he can to keep his crate in the air to avoid capture, trees or Yvette's barn. I've noticed many planes I've shot up, visibly full of holes, just keep flying in a straight line, elevators up because that's all they can do. Eventually they glide into the ground, but his buddy is trying to get my attention so I can't just watch him til he goes. Annoying this war business isn't it?
5. Throughout the history of air combat, I've read about planes flying long after the aircrew is dead or even after fuel should have run out.
6. Even after playing OFF for years, my combat skills aren't good enough for P3 and I still need to 'practice' and get better. The old tactics I learned in P1 and P2 won't cut it anymore, with the better AI, larger formations, more activity I need to pay more attention to my own survual than the enemy's lack thereof. Kind of like evolving tactics from 1915 to 1918.

Okay, now I'm rambling, I've said enough.

 

[Siggi]

Quite true WM. Most SURVIVING pilots or more specifically, those who served the entire war, didn't have that many kills. Some only 5 or 6.

Siggi; Like WM said, it's a slippery slope. AI, even at it's best, is vastly inferior to HI (Human Intelligence...sometimes loosely applied). Anyway, that must be compensated for in some fashion to keep the game challenging and somewhat realistic. Do you do it with damage and gunnery or performance or both?

Now, we've got people wanting the AI gunnery range and accuracy reduced. Next we want hits to destroy not just damage. Do we apply the same to both AI and player? Who will we hear from first when their 16.5 hour pilot dies because the first bullets that hit his plane sliced through the spars and caused his wings to fold up?

You're thinking in the right way in at least positing that you want the effects to cut both ways, but to what end? For many, the focus seems to be on the action, the combat, and that's OK. For my part, and I'm speaking only for myself, I think the devs intended the immersive experience to include the tedium and frustration as well. It wasn't all zooming through enemy formations wth your hair on fire, chopping them up with your twin mg's. I'm not criticizing anybody's taste, just adding my own perspective.

I get frustrated too, knowing I've only got one gun, limited ammo and I keep pouring it into this EIII that keeps on flying.
Then I remember several key things.
1. The usual reasoning that with the skeletal framework of these planes, hitting something vital other than the pilot, or engine is very rare.
2. My gunnery isn't that good no matter what I think.
3. My FPS is low which makes targeting and leading even more inaccurate.
4. Hopefully, like me, the enemy AI is doing all he can to keep his crate in the air to avoid capture, trees or Yvette's barn. I've noticed many planes I've shot up, visibly full of holes, just keep flying in a straight line, elevators up because that's all they can do. Eventually they glide into the ground, but his buddy is trying to get my attention so I can't just watch him til he goes. Annoying this war business isn't it?
5. Throughout the history of air combat, I've read about planes flying long after the aircrew is dead or even after fuel should have run out.
6. Even after playing OFF for years, my combat skills aren't good enough for P3 and I still need to 'practice' and get better. The old tactics I learned in P1 and P2 won't cut it anymore, with the better AI, larger formations, more activity I need to pay more attention to my own survual than the enemy's lack thereof. Kind of like evolving tactics from 1915 to 1918.

Okay, now I'm rambling, I've said enough.

Which is all why it needs to be another option, not the only way. Otherwise it would put off more people than it would attract, which would be an entirely bad thing.

It's something I didn't particularly notice at first, thinking along the lines it would be the exception rather than the rule (break-ups). But even after deliberately focusing fire on 2-seater wings (a shed-load) and seeing a stream of bits flying off, the wings resolutely fail to fold. Long after I would have completely cut them through, never mind just weakened them to the point of failure.

Folding planes is a significantly absent dynamic, one I originally attributed to a limitation of the engine. But now I know the engine can do it I want to see it. It just doesn't feel right or natural that planes are able to absorb the amount of fire thay do and remain structurally intact. Pilot death or engine fire, it's not enough. When I hit a plane good I want to see it FALL, in bits, per reality. And know the same fate awaits me if I allow a hun to get on my tail and give me a good pasting.

And for that to be a selectable option, either by way of weakening all the planes (hard work for the devs) or increasing the strength of all bullets (easy for the devs?).