fagulha Posted January 30, 2022 Share Posted January 30, 2022 Hi all, Did ED ever considered persistent wear and tear of the airframes? accumulating flying hours and hard landings, some systems get degraded sometimes, fuel leaks (reflected sometimes in the liverie/dirt... but i don´t see that possible), etc. Thank you, Best regards, Fagulha. 1 - "Don't be John Wayne in the Break if you´re going to be Jerry Lewis on the Ball". About carrier ops: "The younger pilots are still quite capable of holding their heads forward against the forces. The older ones have been doing this too long and know better; sore necks make for poor sleep.' PC: I7 4790K 4.6ghz | 32GB RAM | Zotac GTX 1080Ti 11Gb DDR5x | Water cooler NZXT AIO Kraken x53 | 3.5TB (x4 SSD´s) | Valve Index| Andre´s JeatSeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Force Team Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 In addition to showing wear-and-tear on the aircraft, I would like to add in factors such as pilot fatigue. These would likely make virtual pilots more realistic. MFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlankerKiller Posted February 1, 2022 Share Posted February 1, 2022 I mean it would be great, but only in a dynamic campaign system. Also two issues you are forgetting. One it doesn't matter how bad the ops guys break it, we will fix it before sending it back out. And two pilots don't fly the same aircraft over and over again. They are assigned whatever is available and on the schedule. So you would have to be breaking jets for awhile before you noticed. It would be cool for a dynamic campaign. But would be more Linked to the logistics situation breaking down then the jet getting worn out. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fagulha Posted February 1, 2022 Author Share Posted February 1, 2022 9 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said: I mean it would be great, but only in a dynamic campaign system. Also two issues you are forgetting. One it doesn't matter how bad the ops guys break it, we will fix it before sending it back out. And two pilots don't fly the same aircraft over and over again. They are assigned whatever is available and on the schedule. So you would have to be breaking jets for awhile before you noticed. It would be cool for a dynamic campaign. But would be more Linked to the logistics situation breaking down then the jet getting worn out. I know what you´re saying and i agree but it can have a more straight approach, It can be enabled for the module itself no matter how many different squadrons/liveries you use in DCS. Is not how it works in real life routine but it can be balanced within DCS limitations. Just an idea. - "Don't be John Wayne in the Break if you´re going to be Jerry Lewis on the Ball". About carrier ops: "The younger pilots are still quite capable of holding their heads forward against the forces. The older ones have been doing this too long and know better; sore necks make for poor sleep.' PC: I7 4790K 4.6ghz | 32GB RAM | Zotac GTX 1080Ti 11Gb DDR5x | Water cooler NZXT AIO Kraken x53 | 3.5TB (x4 SSD´s) | Valve Index| Andre´s JeatSeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlankerKiller Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 23 hours ago, fagulha said: I know what you´re saying and i agree but it can have a more straight approach, It can be enabled for the module itself no matter how many different squadrons/liveries you use in DCS. Is not how it works in real life routine but it can be balanced within DCS limitations. Just an idea. I don't like that approach at all. I like to try my hand at aerobatics. also I sometime fancy myself a test pilot. Point is, it's not infrequently that I intentionally push the jet all the way up to its design limit. Also having it for the module would be unrealistic to a game breaking degree. It is true that while deployed the level of maintenance isn't really the same as in the states. It's more detailed than that, when you're surging a lot of missions you don't have time to fix every non-grounding write-up. This happens in the states too, but we usually have more airframes available so we work the time in. When deployed, and depending on where you're deployed to, and depending on how big the operation is, and depending on a million real world factors, we just don't have enough airframes usually to set them down to fix non-grounding issues. So if you were to take a campaign whether it be linear or dynamic. Especially the dynamic. And say you had 10 tail numbers. And those ten tails started at different structural and engine wear points. Then as you work your way through your campaign you are assigned one of those 10 airframes permission. And you had some kind of variable for ops tempo. Then the wear and tear could accumulate across the airframes. Structurel damage from say Over G should be permanent. because we don't have the resources to fix that in the field. Depending on how battle damage is fixed, it can affect the drag on the airframe. If patches and doublers are used then that will obviously add a little bit of drag. So say your tell number 001 get shot up on a mission, it might be slightly more draggy on the next mission. We already know battle damage affects the drag ratio in game so you could just say 1/10 of actual damage added to that part of the airframe. If you're running a high ops tempo, then as the campaign goes along you would probably start to see things like panel lights not working, or even non essential systems deactivated. The thing there isn't much nonessential on a fighter. On top of that most of the wear and tear you get isn't really noticable from the cockpit. On heavies you might have a radio not work, or the radio altimeter be out, or one of the AC packs be out, or some part of the mission equipment be down. But mostly you will see things like broken knobs, or torn seat cushions, back lights out, a flood light out, or the god damn mother fucking gasper fan not working. So little <profanity>. Another thing that could be done is use random system failures and increase the chances of a system malfunction with every instance of over G, or battle damage, or hard landing. This sounds like some really groundbreaking stuff. But I'm trying to limit myself to things that are already modeled in game. Heatblure moduled random levels of airframe wear with the Cat. ED modeled engine wear. Battle damage exist in game. Random system failures exist in game. Now let me be clear we won't really put a jet up that isn't safe, or doesn't have a critical system operating IRL. So it wouldn't be realistic to see jets with major systems failed in game. Or to have airframes that are so weak that the wings will snap under the normal G load. But some things could be done. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fagulha Posted September 20, 2022 Author Share Posted September 20, 2022 It looks that ED is working on Wear and tear, as i suspected. That´s awesome news. - "Don't be John Wayne in the Break if you´re going to be Jerry Lewis on the Ball". About carrier ops: "The younger pilots are still quite capable of holding their heads forward against the forces. The older ones have been doing this too long and know better; sore necks make for poor sleep.' PC: I7 4790K 4.6ghz | 32GB RAM | Zotac GTX 1080Ti 11Gb DDR5x | Water cooler NZXT AIO Kraken x53 | 3.5TB (x4 SSD´s) | Valve Index| Andre´s JeatSeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WelshZeCorgi Posted September 23, 2022 Share Posted September 23, 2022 Do you have a source? @fagulha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts