Malfunctions

[fireship4]

Will random system malfunctions be modelled?

 

The whole startup procedure would be better if you could actually find a problem (dont know what method you would implement for rectifying faults - you could just have a quick dialog box saying that because you found the fault it was fixed) and the possibility of an important system going down mid-mission would be interesting.

[CAT_101st]

O come on that would be too real!!!:smilewink:

[VMFA117_Poko]

I can see the catch phrase already. MS has "As real as it gets" - ED "Our sims are too real" :D

[AlphaOneSix]

While I think that mimicking faults is great up to a certain point, it is also very easy to overdo. I don't mind faults during flight that force you to memorize certain emergency procedures, that could be a lot of fun (to me, anyway). But during startup, don't waste my time, especially not with a dialog box that does nothing more than tell me that I found a fault and it was fixed. Here's a hint, if you find a fault during startup, you don't fix it, you get out and let the ground crew fix it, and that sort of defeats the purpose of a "flight" sim. Of course, we could always go for the ultimate in realism:

 

Bob: "Hey John, I haven't seen you playing BS in a week, what the deal?"

John: "Oh sorry, I'm waiting on a new main gearbox, it should be fixed in a few days. Until then, I can't play."

[fireship4]

Well the dialog box idea was a compromise really, so you wouldnt have to wait for repairs. A sort of abstraction maybe, though it may go too far (both ways - realistic and non-realistic).

 

Are there persistant airframes?

[CAT_101st]

You know if nothing is ever going to go wrong before takeoff their is no need to do all the checks. Now if a gague is not working or a light is out on a warning do we have to deal with it or can it be fixed? I am sure their is a reason for the checks other than just doing thim.

[leafer]

I can see the catch phrase already. MS has "As real as it gets" - ED "Our sims are too real" :D

 

LOL

 

Next thing you know ED'll have a group like R.O.A.R "Rabid mOther Against Realism" screaming for their testicles.

 

Joke aside, I can almost feel Matt's migraine kicking in after reading this thread. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[britgliderpilot]

Don't know the answer to that.

 

I do think it'd be a pain in the arse to have to restart a mission for a new helicopter, though . . . .

[nemises]

yeah..cascading failures from weapons damage or airframe mishandling is one thing...

..random failures on startup?...hmm..a step too far I think....

 

Maybe in SP in a special kind of campaign (ya know, the one where you have to fly 3 hours realtime between bases to transport the new equipment xyz)...

[AlphaOneSix]

You know if nothing is ever going to go wrong before takeoff their is no need to do all the checks.

 

Spoken like a true pilot. ;) The checklist from Shepski's post has 54 tasks, and only 4 of them are actual tests or checks. Your own checklist only has 5 tests (that I counted, anyway). There are still 50 other things you need to do to get flying even if you skip all the checks.

 

I actually disagree with having startup malfunctions (no offense, of course). The reason we (or at least *I*) want a detailed startup procedure is to get me immersed into the game. If there was a failure of something on the ground, it would either get fixed or I'd switch to a different airframe, in both cases all I've done is waste time I could have spent flying. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of in-flight emergencies, but I just don't feel like any value is added by having a problem during startup (well, unless you skip something or get something out of order, in which case you broke it, it wasn't "pre-broken").

[CAT_101st]

I can agree to that.

 

get me immersed :book::joystick:

[mvsgas]

Man, imagine how frustrating that would be? After getting to target area, you set up just to realize you got a "hung missile" or laser won't fire. I thinks that would be to real. I imagine flying the KA-50 at low altitude for 20 minutes just to fly back because you could not lunch any weapons. I probably be so piss off I would not play for a day or two.

[fireship4]

Maybe have it as an option...

 

A good comparison is Silent Hunter 4. You can spend hours tracking a merchant accross the South China Sea, end - around, come to periscope depth, calculate a firing solution and fire tubes 1, 2 and 3. Two hit, one of those is a dud. The merchant begins zig-zagging and you have to slip away.

Far from finding this aspect annoying, it's all part of the tension.

[AlphaOneSix]

I don't mind duds, although they are exceedingly rare nowadays. I also don't mind in-flight emergencies, although they are also exceedingly rare. I also wouldn't mind seeing the occasional (albeit exceedingly rare) system malfunction mid-mission. As long as all of these malfunctions occur realistically (meaning very rarely or not at all). The question is if it's worth the developer's time and money to program something that happens once in 100 flights, if that often. For me, I'd rather see effort placed into things that are more often a real concern, such as realistic weather, and more realistic terrain (i.e. collide-able trees). Those are things you have to worry about every flight. Once that's handled, then worry about modeling things that have a failure rate of once per several hundred flights.

[RvETito]

Will random system malfunctions be modelled?

 

The whole startup procedure would be better if you could actually find a problem (dont know what method you would implement for rectifying faults - you could just have a quick dialog box saying that because you found the fault it was fixed) and the possibility of an important system going down mid-mission would be interesting.

 

If I find a problem during the preflight checks that moron the mechanic better run fast :D We don't have a MEL in Black Shark, if there's a failure we dont' fly :)

[Bimbac]

Hello everyone,

 

Personally, I think that inclusion of less serious malfunctions would add much immersion, if done in a proper way.

 

For example: let's divide the malfunctions into 2 types: Flight safety and Mission.

 

Flight safety could include faults like: Hydraulics leak, engine fails to start, serious avionics failure, etc. I'm sure that you can come up with more quite easily. In general, this is the type of malfunction that is a definite "NO-GO" for a flight, so you would have to switch to another aircraft (excellent for campaigns, where you could be limited by airworthy helicopters).

 

Mission category includes malfunctions that could affect your ability to complete a mission, for example Data link failure, Radio failure, Laser malfunction or overheating, Navigation or Targeting system failure, etc. This would be left to pilot's discretion either to continue or to abort (excellent during start-up). The point is, if you are to perform a Search-and-Destroy mission, failure in WCS would seriously hamper with your effort. On the other hand, this kind of malfunction wouldn't present any problem if performing simple ferry flight.

 

How about this? Your opinions are highly welcome.

 

Regards!

[leafer]

If I find a problem during the preflight checks that moron the mechanic better run fast :D We don't have a MEL in Black Shark, if there's a failure we dont' fly :)

 

I've been away for several years so I don't know who's who anymore, so you're a BS pilot? And what is MEL? Not Mel Gibson I hope.

[GreyStork]

And what is MEL? Not Mel Gibson I hope.

 

It will alleviate your concerns that the acronym stands for Minimum Equipment List, i.e. a list of stuff that, if it breaks, means you can't fly - while the proper functioning of everything else doesn't really matter.

[press]

Actually the MEL is a list of allowed defects. If an aircraft has a defect that is included in the MEL than it can fly.

 

For instance. If the Aft No.1 Fuel Pump in the Boeing 737 brakes...you can still fly the plane, but you have to take an extra of 1200kg of fuel onboard.

[leafer]

ahhh. thanks