Do you think interesting, add flaws in armament?

[Legolasindar]

Do you think interesting, add flaws in armament? What missiles, rockets, bombs and other weapons may suffer a judgment manufacturing, or accidental, as with real weapons. Pumps that fail to explode, they lose contact missiles set rocket that deviate much from its path, etc...

 

Not as something optional, as something always present in the simulator.

[golfsierra2]

Interesting topic.

Hung Ordnance consequently should require mission abort (due to uncontrolled or delayed ignition / release) and weapon load jettison before landing (otherwise... well you can figure out yourself...)

[Kuky]

Voted "yes" as it's definitely adding to realism. We sort of have this already in LockOn under failures part in mission building but I think no one is using it.

[Legolasindar]

Canyon jammed, collateral damage by errors in weapons, such as a GBU suffered a failure of computers and set a nearby civilian target by mistake during the flight. AA missile guidance thermal blocking an airplane friend, accidentally.

 

Add variability in the fight gets that we have to think fast to adapt at all times to the new situation.

 

Although it is also true that for example after many minutes of flight and get penetrate enemy territory with great skill without being seen, that the weapon releasing fails, it could frustrated.

[RedTiger]

Do you think interesting, add flaws in armament? What missiles, rockets, bombs and other weapons may suffer a judgment manufacturing, or accidental, as with real weapons. Pumps that fail to explode, they lose contact missiles set rocket that deviate much from its path, etc...

 

Not as something optional, as something always present in the simulator.

 

I voted yes BUT...

 

So long as the randomness is derived from real statistical failure rates and it applies to both players and AI. I don't want something silly like a flat rate of failure for everything nor a slider like in lockon (on/off should be enough for most mission builders). I also want the AI and their equipment to suffer from realistic failure rates.

[GGTharos]

I'm voting no. All this will lead to is people shouting that US weapons break down less than Russian weapons ... thus contributing to greater Pk for the AMRAAM. ;)

 

No, seriously. Would you really like to see old R-27's against AMRAAMs in terms of maintaintenance? Would really like to know that Russia is having trouble with their components for R-77's? Because they are - it does not really pay to model ordnance failures for any reason other than procedure training IMHO.

[rogue_blade]

lovely english haha

[Eagle Driver]

I love the idea, it would totally revolutionize the Sparrow, R-27, and especially the Phoenix.

[britgliderpilot]

Hmmn.

 

I'd imagine it'd get a bit wearing if you kept failing missions because your weapons didn't work . . .

 

Anyone know a typical failure rate on weapons like these? Would the average player even notice such a feature?

[GGTharos]

It depends on where, when, and how they were stored bgp.

Missiles rotated for captive carry will fail more often than those stored in a dry warm place for example, and not all bases store'em to equal standard (not all can).

Further, you have to account for the competence of your weapons maintenance crew, the manufacturing capability, etc etc ... I would say it is far too complex a subject to broach in a sim, and again, as I said - we'd have a huge 'no yours should fail more often' bruhaha.

But hey - I'm all for realism, I don't mind seeing R-27's dropping dumb off of flanker's rails ... ;)

[Highwayman-Ed]

I like the idea too, but like all realism options, there should be an on and off switch to give people a choice.

[RedTiger]

It depends on where, when, and how they were stored bgp.

Missiles rotated for captive carry will fail more often than those stored in a dry warm place for example, and not all bases store'em to equal standard (not all can).

Further, you have to account for the competence of your weapons maintenance crew, the manufacturing capability, etc etc ... I would say it is far too complex a subject to broach in a sim, and again, as I said - we'd have a huge 'no yours should fail more often' bruhaha.

But hey - I'm all for realism, I don't mind seeing R-27's dropping dumb off of flanker's rails ... ;)

 

I didn't think about the aspect of how the ground crews handle weapons. I remember a quote from somewhere about how ground crews handled Sparrows in Vietnam no more carefully than they did dumb bombs. Someone said "if you treat it like a bomb its going to fall like a bomb".

 

About the sh*t fight that would ensue if Russian weapons or US weapons ended up being more or less reliable, it makes you appreciate what a precarious position ED can be in sometimes. A Russian based company trying to make realistic Russian and Western kit that are going to be pitted against each other each time you play...

[Eagle Driver]

Well, I think it should be simplified a bit in that regard. I think ED should just take the average failure rate of each weapon and model randomized failures based on that data. There really aren't enough airbases and groundcrew aren't modelled at all in the sim *hint* so it's difficult to include that kind of detail. Just remember this, according to the F4:AF manual, Allied Force features such failures as well, and aren't we trying to best them in realism here?

[Boberro]

I voted yes, it is normal that weapons brake or something wrong happen, example alone drops from pylon :>

[Geier]

I voted yes, but there's one point.

It's rather difficult to see it in online because this option should be the same for all clients otherwise it'll be unfair.

[192nd_Erdem]

YES

 

It could bring tear to my eyes if I saw one of my Vikhrs go insane and detonate prematurely :)

[Yeniceri]

But hey - I'm all for realism, I don't mind seeing R-27's dropping dumb off of flanker's rails ... ;)

 

Yeah you wish :P

:smilewink:

[ViperVJG73]

I am vote for yes, but the mistakes must also be able to recognise!

(weapons fail displayed in the cockpit)

[VMFA117_Poko]

"YES" if same aircrafts differ in some small details, if flaws in engines, if health of differnet crafts depends on ground technician and they work quality depends on training, etc... Hmmm. I'll choose N/A.

[Weta43]

I voted no - for the reasons GG outlined above.

 

My $0.02 - these polls will tend to self select people to respond - people who think it's a great idea when they read the title will respond, people who don't are more likely to ignore it (like I did the first few times I saw it), and so the results may not be a fair representation of all ...

[Pilotasso]

I voted no. Missiles already fail too often. Having them go dead randomly would add to the frustration.

[Highwayman-Ed]

There is a difference between "fail" and "are crap" ;)

[GGTharos]

There isn't. ;)

I believe you'd find that with a realistic failure rate, you'd be calling russian missiles 'crap' in no time ;) (As well as older AIM-7's, or AIM-7's stored in a damp enviro-oh wait, that would necessitate simulating where your ammo's coming from!!!! )

 

In other words, weapons failure simulation = bad idea. Unless you want everyone to have equal failure rates, I guess, but then ... what's the point?

[Grimes]

IMO its not worth debating having weapons failure with air to air, theres enough factors already that can contribute to a successful splash or a total miss. The sheer fact that it involves you the player killing or being killed would probably make an a2a missile failure the top scapegoat of deaths.

 

But if you think of it in terms of A2G ordinance I think its a reasonable idea because generally when you shoot at a ground target theres few outside factors that can attribute to it missing and besides the AI isn't going to complain that your missile should have missed given the current conditions at your airbase. In my ground pounding experience I've had laser guided weapons miss due to me keeping the laser on to long so it overheats, or I fire a Mav without a good lock and it just flies off the rail without tracking. These are user based errors but I kinda enjoy not knowing if my vikhor will steer itself onto target or if it will continue its insane flight path. There is a level of situational awareness involved, especially if my target was a AAA battery and all of a sudden I am closer than I should be.

 

Obviously you can't have a missile flaw on every single sortie and its probably something that should be fairly rare in occurrence for the simple fact that it wouldn't be treated as annoying when it happens. There is a delicate balance to be sought for failures. I think it can be done, but should be kept in the realm of A2G as there isn't the human factor involved.

[RedTiger]

The sheer fact that it involves you the player killing or being killed would probably make an a2a missile failure the top scapegoat of deaths.

 

I thought everyone who plays online sims and games already have a scapegoat for deaths, called LAG? :D