Persistent Engine/Aircraft Wear

[Zompa]

Now, I've just seen that Accu-Sim has a persistent engine/aircraft wear feature from watching a youtube video showcasing their P-51D. From what I can tell it actually keeps track of the aircraft's systems continually, so one would need to take care of their bird to keep her flying. I'm not talking about while just in the air either. I mean it will keep a log of your aircraft's well being between sessions and it's your job to do the maintenance. I could see something like this working well with the WWII prop planes being released. Now, some may not enjoy actually keeping track of their wheel brakes state of happiness. So making something like this as an option would appeal to many, I would think. But as someone who enjoys simulation, I think it would be a pretty awesome thing to tend to my P-51D in my virtual hanger :thumbup: Another facet that could be a part of this gem.

 

Here is the video I was referring to and the segment I was speaking of happens at 25:00..

Edited November 28, 2014 by Zompa

[Oesau]

Yes, Accu-Sim models a persistent airframe, largely focused around the engine and it's dependant systems.

 

I've been a big fan of theirs for a long time now and the quality is great - it's just a shame it hasn't been done to date in a combat sim where in a career campaign it would be fantastic to have (though as long as all of the AI don't always have brand new aircraft).

[Zompa]

Oesau, yes it would be very fantastic. One thing DCS has over Accu-Sim is combat functionality (of course). As more WWII features come about, I would hope to see a WWII campaign somewhere along the line. Nonetheless, something like a persistent engine/aircraft wear feature is something I never thought of before. So the idea of not only being able to fly a P-51D but to also maintain the aircraft makes this such an immersive concept. I would love to see this implemented in DCS.

[mvsgas]

Sorry, I disagree. What are you going to do after getting combat/battle damage? Might work for Accu-Sim in a non combat environment but it would be terrible in DCS. I guess if you only plan to fly around. Combat Aircraft age much quicker than civilian aircraft since the airframe accumulate hours very quickly and it does so close to the operational limits. We where doing major inspections in the F-16 some times every two weeks in combat. Same inspections during day to day flying would be done every 2 to 3 months. ( Phase inspections every 300 hrs IIRC)

 

Besides? it does not add to DCS. When P-51 where in combat, the Crew Chiefs took care of the aircraft, not the pilot. Most pilots I met working in the USAF from 1997 to 2012 didn't even know what the filter looked like, much less how to tell if they where bad.

 

As a combat pilot, you may have your aircraft assigned to you ( with your name on it) but it does not mean you only fly that particular aircraft. You would fly what ever was available,

 

Anyway, just my thought on the subject.

Edited November 28, 2014 by mvsgas

[b00ce]

I can see it both ways, this would incentivise doing proper run-up checks and would be pretty cool on the whole. The only doubt about a system is when you start running into inspections designed to catch certain faults; like pre-flight, daily, 40, 120, 360 and 720 hour inspections (Hours are airframe dependent). At those intervals, the aircraft should in theory be reset in terms of any faults that may arise and to be good to go. You can't really crawl around the aircraft to see if a filter button popped, find leaks in the hydraulics or general wear and tear either, so that's no fun.

 

Besides, after you land at the airfield and repair, everything that's broken gets fixed and you have essentially a brand new aircraft.

[313_Nevo]

This could be cool as separate payware add-on as Accu-Sim is (does A2A plane to start developing for DCSW? ;) )

[Zompa]

"What are you going to do after getting combat/battle damage?" good question. In a simulation like DCS, one can not avoid that situation forever. What if the pilot died? I suppose this has many loopholes. Initially, the idea captivated me. Bringing the underlying systems of this old war bird to a perspective of something that breathes, seemed immersive and exciting. As to being the virtual pilot, I suppose it would be of no concern to know what happens in the hangar. All you'd need to know is that everything is okay and ready to fly. But.. a part of me wants to know what happens in the hangar. I'd love to know what goes into up-keeping a P-51D. It was something that just captured my imagination.

 

Hope nobody minds me using the P-51D as an example.

Edited November 28, 2014 by Zompa

[mvsgas]

I think if someone creates a MOD that adds randomness to the aircraft is better than persistent damage/ wear. What I mean is, you may jump in an airplane and you may not be able to reach 45 inches, or RPM may only go to 27k. etc, etc. Essentially, this is what would happen in RL aircraft, with normal wear and tear, not all are the same. The problem would be the forums would be inundate with post of people complaining: "This /that is nor accurate/ realistic" or " I saw a video from 1/2 a mile away and it did not look like that" and so on ( if done by ED and not a MOD). I guess we all experience that now in a way. But is more related to our set up and hardware.

Edited November 28, 2014 by mvsgas

[Cali]

Won't work in DCS, your aircraft gets destroyed too often and you just get a new one.

[Exorcet]

It would make a good option for civil flying.

 

On the combat side, you'd either need a rotation of aircraft that are part of your group that you select between before missions or a coalition/country maintenance quality that sets parameters for random failures for a given set of planes.

[Zompa]

Yes, I think as it as it was said before that it would be great for a campaign. But as for online gameplay and what not maybe not so much.

[Hadwell]

The mig-21 has engine wear, it slowly loses power if you burn it too long, too hot, but if you treat the engine nice it'll last longer than you'll probably play in one spawn.

 

the mig-21 also uses compressed air for the brakes, and has no compressor to refill the tanks, so when you run out of air, you have no brakes.

 

it also has an evaporative cooling system that uses liquid helium i believe, that runs out and your radar will fry, literally, after 20 minutes, if you don't put the radar in standby, in standby it lasts 45 minutes.

 

since nothing in DCS is really persistent, probably pretty difficult to do, make it so that you always get the same plane back every time you spawn in.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Hadwell

[Cali]

since nothing in DCS is really persistent, probably pretty difficult to do, make it so that you always get the same plane back every time you spawn in.

 

How are you going to get the same plane back that has been blown to pieces?

[NeilWillis]

Might be good to have the option to have ongoing wear/battle damage affecting a particular airframe, but as has been discussed, you will soon get through airframes in combat.

 

Or of course, there should be a reset, so that any aircraft can be restored to "as new" condition.

 

Interesting thought though. I am sure this debate will roll for a long time now.

[nervousenergy]

I think if someone creates a MOD that adds randomness to the aircraft is better than persistent damage/ wear. What I mean is, you may jump in an airplane and you may not be able to reach 45 inches, or RPM may only go to 27k. etc, etc. Essentially, this is what would happen in RL aircraft, with normal wear and tear, not all are the same. The problem would be the forums would be inundate with post of people complaining: "This /that is nor accurate/ realistic" or " I saw a video from 1/2 a mile away and it did not look like that" and so on ( if done by ED and not a MOD). I guess we all experience that now in a way. But is more related to our set up and hardware.

How would this be different than the random systems failure option that's already in the game?

[mvsgas]

How would this be different than the random systems failure option that's already in the game?

 

Random failures the systems fails, normal wear the systems would behave differently but still work. Radios might have static, engine nozzle might only close to some level, RPM might only go so high/low. An aircraft might need left rudder trim one day and right the other. Etc, etc. I do not think either of them are/would be useful but some people seem to like the idea. I do/would not need either( random failures or randomize behavior), AAA, enemy aircraft, ground vehicles and SAM site do all that for me.

Edited November 30, 2014 by mvsgas

[Cali]

...and he ain't gonna fly no more :music_whistling:

 

 

...ejection seat

[AceRevo]

Sorry, I disagree. What are you going to do after getting combat/battle damage? Might work for Accu-Sim in a non combat environment but it would be terrible in DCS. I guess if you only plan to fly around. Combat Aircraft age much quicker than civilian aircraft since the airframe accumulate hours very quickly and it does so close to the operational limits. We where doing major inspections in the F-16 some times every two weeks in combat. Same inspections during day to day flying would be done every 2 to 3 months. ( Phase inspections every 300 hrs IIRC)

 

Besides? it does not add to DCS. When P-51 where in combat, the Crew Chiefs took care of the aircraft, not the pilot. Most pilots I met working in the USAF from 1997 to 2012 didn't even know what the filter looked like, much less how to tell if they where bad.

 

As a combat pilot, you may have your aircraft assigned to you ( with your name on it) but it does not mean you only fly that particular aircraft. You would fly what ever was available,

 

Anyway, just my thought on the subject.

 

 

this basically sums it up. +1

[karambiatos]

How are you going to get the same plane back that has been blown to pieces?

Nothing a bit of ductape and super glue cant fix.

[Zompa]

Well, if a pilot were to be shot down and he did eject to survive the incident. Would he be assigned to a new aircraft? Or if the aircraft were heavily damaged and he managed to fly back home, would there be a new aircraft to be assigned to while it would go under repairs? If this is the case, then if there were "Persistent Engine/Aircraft Wear" I'd suppose you'd always have a new aircraft after every scratch. I'm not even sure what should happen in-game if the pilot were to die. Though, in the logbook in DCS they have a "vulnerable/invulnerable" option for your profile. So if you were to fatally crash, I think you'd have to create a new profile to keep tabs of your exploits. As I had said before, if "Persistent Engine/Aircraft Wear" were an option, it would appeal to those who enjoy anything to make the experience more.. challenging? I'm not sure what word to use there. But I think the "Persistent Engine/Aircraft Wear" feature would go hand in hand with the "vulnerable/invulnerable" option in the log book. Otherwise the "vulnerable/invulnerable" option is a little pointless really other than just a little role-playing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Rogue Trooper]

This makes absolute sense with an ongoing dynamic campaign... both online and offline... but otherwise...meh.

It would be superb if both engine wear and the dynamic campaign became a reality.

[mvsgas]

Well, if a pilot were to be shot down and he did eject to survive the incident. Would he be assigned to a new aircraft? Or if the aircraft were heavily damaged and he managed to fly back home, would there be a new aircraft to be assigned to while it would go under repairs?.

I have no idea how it works on other air forces. In the USAF, most likely no, unless the pilot is High ranking. If they get an aircraft assign, it only means their name goes on the cockpit (not in combat since names are removed in combat) That aircraft would still be flown by any pilot in the squadron. I do not know the regulations for aircraft assignment, but, IIRC, higher ranking pilots would get the aircraft. Most Squadrons have more pilots than aircraft. Additionally, pilots rarely get to fly their own aircraft now a day. They Fly what ever is available. I was assigned to aircraft for years and I seldom saw my pilot. Some Pilots I never even met. At one point in Aviano AB, I had six different pilots in 4 months while assigned to aircraft 355. Hope that answers you question.

 

As for the way that it was back in the past, I do not know for sure.

Edited December 2, 2014 by mvsgas

[Slazi]

Would this be possible to do via scripts? There must be functions to call up the airframe state, functions to load and save the data into a textfile etc? Perhaps a modder could implement this?

 

I'd love to see a civilian campaign for the Mi-8 similar to Take On Helicopters.

[Stratickus]

I came here just to give my 2 cents on the subject. I think there are some good points being made, but some caveats that should be thrown out there. In DCS' current state I would say that persistent wear doesn't make as much sense, but I wouldn't go so far to say that it is a terrible idea. As someone has pointed out this 'option' would make far more sense in a dynamic campaign environment. In fact it becomes almost necessary.

 

Since this is a Digital Combat Simulator, maintenance should be included, at least at some level. In the real world, maintenance is hugely critical to combat effectiveness. Just ask any maintenance troop and they'll tell you.. It doesn't matter how awesome your plane flies or how good your pilots are if the thing rarely gets off the ground due to shoddy maintenance or poor design to begin with.

 

Considering the emphasis that DCS places on high levels of detail, I think some version of persistent wear will (hopefully) be implemented.

 

Just an example of how this could (should) come into play would be the Bf 109. Its awkward and very pilot unfriendly landing gear was designed the way it was for a reason. Part of it was for weight/complexity reasons, but part of it was for ease of maintenance. Only two aspects of that design are adequately represented/simulated in DCS' current state and that is the light weight and the pain that it is to taxi/land and takeoff. Quick turn around time and/or ease of maintenance is not.

 

But, hopefully sometime in the future persistent wear (simulated maintenance considerations) will be implemented with some form of dynamic campaign.

 

Just my 2 cents..