Making those start-up checks COUNT!

[Bearfoot]

So, we usually spawn with perfect, factory-fresh machines. Which makes a lot of the real checklist procedures busywork. You know it, I know it, and, most importantly, the player knows it. So, at some point or another, people stop doing it because it wastes times or they feel silly or, at the end of the day, it just doesn't matter.

 

How do we make it matter?

 

I guess there probably is a way to script parts failures? Either randomly or otherwise. But then, what does a player a do in that case? Quit and try again? And again?

 

What would be nice is if we could create a radio menu option where the player can request a new airframe, and then gets spawned in that.

 

I guess in MP, we could just create 20 slots, with each slot airframe have some independent probability of part failure? Would that work? What about in SP (as in, e.g., a campaign mission)?

[mvsgas]

I would hate real life scenarios. Get an Radar failure just when you launch your first missile. Hung bombs over the target. Engine FO damage just before or during take off. Radio malfunctions just after you hear: "Watch out for...!" Complete all starting procedure, go to the end of the runway and be told mission is weather canx.

Edited November 5, 2017 by mvsgas

[Bearfoot]

I would hate real life scenarios. Get an Radar failure just when you launch your first missile. Hung bombs over the target. Engine FO damage just before or during take off. Radio malfunctions just after you hear: "Watch out for...!" Complete all starting procedure, go to the end of the runway and be told mission is weather canx.

 

Lots of things in real life suck compared to the sim world, e.g., pulling G's or taking an R-77 in the patouchi or a 23 mike-mike in the face or ... dysentery or other plumbing issues ("Sting 3"), hemorrhoids, lack of sleep, etc. Funny how we want to simulate the first set as authentically as possible but really would not want to simulate the latter, though both contribute to, let us say, the "challenges"!

 

But I get your point. There is a line to be drawn, and the question is, where to draw the line! I'm thinking that if we could incorporate hydraulic failure into the mission, which the player can either discover pre-take off by going through the checklist properly (or after take-off if they skip it), this would be an nice touch. But yes, something that the player has no way of discovering/fixing/avoiding that will only pounce on them much later in the mission will suck and kill the game if it happens frequently and/or randomly (it's different if it is, e.g., a planned engine failure that is the core of the mission design, as in the Mi-8 campaign mission).

Edited November 5, 2017 by Bearfoot

[jackmckay]

good idea. but how about having dedicated mechanic (DCS: Mechanic) or preflight airframe inspection done manually, hyd. oil leak detection egg. nice features but in wartime birds must be ready for immediate scramble right?

[Bearfoot]

good idea. but how about having dedicated mechanic (DCS: Mechanic) or preflight airframe inspection done manually, hyd. oil leak detection egg. nice features but in wartime birds must be ready for immediate scramble right?

 

I'm sure you are joking. But, you know, if there was going to be a full, high-fidelity crew chief simulator with all the engine parts etc. working and connecting together and you have complete and authentic access and manipulation to everything ... you know what? I'd get it in a heartbeat. No matter what the airframe.

 

As for bird conditions --- I've always thought that "persistent airframes" would be a nice feature in a server/MP environment. Take it one step further: no two airframes are identical in performance. Every parameter value has some normally-distrbuted +/- associated with its typical/ideal value. So some airframes might have slightly better performance overall while others might have slightly worse (due to, e.g., engine output, blade lift capacity etc). Yeah, too much, I know. But since we are passing around the day-dream wishful thinking pipe, why not?

[Quadg]

as its a military sim. you get all the random variations from battle damage.

 

not civilian flight stress. all failures are far more likely from battle damage than maintenance failure/part failure.

 

so the missions do play out differently.

 

especially in helicopters where you are taking ground fire from small arms landing at LZ.

 

and as a military pilot you fly as a pool pilot. flying pool squadron aircraft. so you don't have persistent single planes. you fly what is put in front of you (taking the lemon home in the mi-8 campaign.. only time you fly that airframe..)

 

the persistent aircraft through a campaign is actually the campaign writers job and not the simulations job.

why I like the "take the lemon home" mission in the mi-8 campaign..

"get that aircraft out of my squadrons inventory.. newbie."

 

and I wish more campaigns took this into account in their writing.. make the squadron aircraft "characters" in the campaign as well as the crews...

 

"today you are flying the one with the persistent hydraulic leak... because all the better ones are on more important tasks. and the mechanics swear they have fixed it this time, for good, honest!"

 

the idea about random button positions on start-up is an interesting one though.

 

I would go for this, we can have a quick pre-flight option for those who want to skip the pre-flight, like those who skip start-up all together.

I play this game as a study sim and that is all extra study sim. and it teaches you the buttons.

[mvsgas]

But yes, something that the player has no way of discovering/fixing/avoiding that will only pounce on them much later in the mission will suck and kill the game if it happens frequently and/or randomly .

 

Please reference video at 3:23

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3289796&postcount=15216

 

See video at 13:42

Edited May 8, 2019 by mvsgas