Persistent Aircraft Maintenance, Wear & Tear From Pilot Action and Environment, and Time Based Failures

[CallsignPunch]

I’d like to propose a major addition to DCS Core that would deepen the simulation experience for both single-player campaigns and multiplayer squadrons: a persistent aircraft maintenance and degradation system.

Core Concept:

Aircraft and their systems should wear down over time based on:

• Flight hours and engine cycles

• Pilot handling (e.g., over-G, hard landings, over-torque)

• Environmental exposure (desert sand, saltwater corrosion, cold weather)

• Maintenance performed (or neglected) by mission designers or logistics scripts

This would mean a way to assign specific serial numbers to aircraft and the maintenance record stays with that particular aircraft.

Proposed Features:

• Aircraft Serial Numbers where in DCS or your squadron, you can have specific aircraft serial numbers

• Component wear and tear that accumulates mission-to-mission, pilot abuse or care, and environment like desert or ocean.

• Failures triggered not only by combat damage but by long-term stress, poor maintenance, or harsh conditions

• Mission editor options to conduct routine maintenance, repairs, and inspections

• Optional “Maintenance Status” window or digital maint. logbook showing aircraft condition before flight

• System degradation like engine spool times increasing, longer startup sequences, reduced sensor accuracy, hydraulic lag, etc.

Example Applications:

• In a multiplayer squadron: AH-64s that repeatedly perform hot landings or overtorque rotors without maintenance might suffer drivetrain or sensor failures on later flights unless serviced.

• In single-player campaigns: A neglected aircraft in a harsh environment may gradually show reduced performance or suffer critical failures mid-mission, encouraging smart flying and logistics.

Why This Matters:

This would raise immersion, reward disciplined flying, and add a whole new layer of realism and mission design. It turns logistics, planning, and maintenance into part of the game loop, just like in real-world aviation operations.

This system could be opt-in and customizable to suit both casual players and hardcore milsim groups.

---

If the devs are reading this, thank you for the incredible work you’ve done so far. A system like this would push DCS even further into the realm of full-spectrum aviation simulation.

[cfrag]

10 hours ago, CallsignPunch said:

Aircraft and their systems should wear down over time

Heck no. That's why aircraft get service, usually 1+ hours of service for each hour of flight.

Case in point: the PA-28 I fly is older than me, it first flew in 1964 and is still is in top shape. Granted, there are probably no original parts left, they may have all been replaced over time. But properly maintained aircraft do NOT wear down over time. Especially not if their intended use is to carry fuzed ordnance and fly into danger. No pilot worth their salt would willingly enter the cockpit of an improperly maintained aircraft to fly it into harm's way. "There are bold pilots and old pilots. There are no old, bold pilots."

So if you do advocate improperly maintained airframes, sure, this is a wish forum. It would not be immersive, just lottery. IMHO it'd be much easier to progressively jack up the probability of an airframe's system failure after each departure, and be done with. 

I do support a more elaborate "failure" model on individual aircraft for Mission Editor though, as IMHO that can significantly enhance training.

[CallsignPunch]

I think we might be interpreting the idea a bit differently.

You're absolutely right that properly maintained aircraft can last decades, especially with meticulous upkeep, but that's exactly why I’m suggesting a simulation of that maintenance loop. The idea isn’t to simulate aircraft falling apart randomly, but to create a system that rewards good maintenance and penalizes neglect or pilot abuse, just like in real aviation.

As for your PA-28 example: it’s a great platform and built to be durable. But it's built for training and simplicity. Now if someone were to constantly over-speed a jet engine, hot-start it, or mishandle throttle settings, even the best-maintained engine would degrade prematurely. Multiply that by combat aircraft flying in harsh conditions, with extreme maneuvers and high-stress components like rotor systems or turbine blades, and degradation becomes a real factor, even with routine maintenance.

The goal here isn’t to simulate “broken-down jets” or create a random failure lottery. It's to introduce persistent aircraft identity, flight hour tracking, pilot handling logs, and a structured maintenance system where mission makers or virtual squadrons can choose to simulate wear and perform inspections or repairs between missions.

I do agree that a more elaborate failure model tied to specific aircraft is the real key, ideally with the option to simulate scheduled maintenance and pilot-induced stress. That way, high-fidelity modules like the AH-64 or F-4E could reflect how operational tempo and crew behavior affect readiness, without being unfair or unrealistic.

I totally appreciate the dialogue; it’s good to explore all angles on how DCS can continue to evolve.

[ShuRugal]

What player-interactive mechanisms are you proposing to add to the game to simulate maintenance cycles?

 

Real life military aviation units don't fly aircraft that are not being maintained, except in the most extreme of circumstances.  Barring examples like the RuAF duct-taping Garmins to the console, serious militaries don't fly aircraft which have inoperable mission-critical systems.  Those aircraft get marked as 'down' and pilots fly aircraft which are not behind on their Mx.

From the perspective of a pilot, aircraft readiness is a non-issue.  aircraft readiness is a problem for the squadron commander to worry about for planning missions.

 

Quote

Now if someone were to constantly over-speed a jet engine, hot-start it, or mishandle throttle settings, even the best-maintained engine would degrade prematurely. Multiply that by combat aircraft flying in harsh conditions, with extreme maneuvers and high-stress components like rotor systems or turbine blades, and degradation becomes a real factor, even with routine maintenance.

which is why debriefing is a thing.  maintainers review the tattler systems in the aircraft to check for things like "engine operated beyond rated limits" or "aircraft over-G'd" and talk to the pilot to find out any additional relevant information, and then perform spot inspections, or even immediately deadline the aircraft.  This gets done after every single mission, combat or otherwise, so that maintenance can be performed as-required to address issues as they arise.

In real life, it is rare for pilots to be assigned to only fly the same exact hull#, pilots are assigned to missions based on crew rest status, and aircraft are assigned to missions based on aircraft maintenance status.  With that in mind, what actual gameplay mechanics are you proposing?  are you asking for an "airframe and powerplant simulation" minigame?  are you proposing that the start of each mission includes the crew chief chewing out the pilot for banging up his bird in the last mission?  For the briefing to just tell the player how many hulls in the squadron are operational?

[cfrag]

20 hours ago, CallsignPunch said:

The goal here isn’t to simulate “broken-down jets” or create a random failure lottery. It's to introduce persistent aircraft identity, flight hour tracking, pilot handling logs, and a structured maintenance system where mission makers or virtual squadrons can choose to simulate wear and perform inspections or repairs between missions.

Understood - but I'm a bit mystified wrt the game mechanics. So you go to your squad's briefing, start your plane only to have it fail/have your chief tell you that it's not ready and then wave to your Alt as they take off? It may be an interesting mechanic from the Alt's point of view, but since planes that don't pass muster don't fly, I'm not sure I see the point except playing the "your'e in, you're out" lottery. Or do you suggest that people knowingly take off in an aircraft that isn't flight-worthy? Since it's a game, sure. I don't think it to be more immersive, but it's surely more thrilling if your plane actually gears up when you know that your hydraulics are on the fritz... Is that what you are looking for?

[SharpeXB]

I think you’re looking for a different game. DAMS Digital Aircraft Maintenance Simulator

As a pilot it’s irrelevant to you whether your hard flight the day before required the crew to work all night pulling the engines from your plane. Your job remains the same.
Certain dynamic war servers (and hopefully the upcoming dynamic campaign) already track resources like fuel, weapons and whether or not you bring the plane back. But handling any more than that probably isn’t feasible or realistic. And ED likely doesn’t have the resources to add modeling every loose screw to modules that already take years to complete.

And looking at the example of WWII with its extreme demands on materiel and resources, how hard the pilots handled their aircraft simply wasn’t a factor. Even severe combat losses didn’t affect the ability of nations to keep their aircraft flying or their industry running. Maybe in extreme cases like the final stages of the war for the Axis but the truth is they really ran short on pilots, not aircraft. 

Edited Tuesday at 03:07 PM by SharpeXB

[Mike Force Team]

Creating maintenance performance monitoring and adds the effects of maintenance for fixed wing and rotary sounds like a significant rework of programming. 

[Horns]

On 6/2/2025 at 7:25 AM, CallsignPunch said:

I’d like to propose a major addition to DCS Core that would deepen the simulation experience for both single-player campaigns and multiplayer squadrons: a persistent aircraft maintenance and degradation system.

Core Concept:

Aircraft and their systems should wear down over time based on:

• Flight hours and engine cycles

• Pilot handling (e.g., over-G, hard landings, over-torque)

• Environmental exposure (desert sand, saltwater corrosion, cold weather)

• Maintenance performed (or neglected) by mission designers or logistics scripts

This would mean a way to assign specific serial numbers to aircraft and the maintenance record stays with that particular aircraft.

Proposed Features:

• Aircraft Serial Numbers where in DCS or your squadron, you can have specific aircraft serial numbers

• Component wear and tear that accumulates mission-to-mission, pilot abuse or care, and environment like desert or ocean.

• Failures triggered not only by combat damage but by long-term stress, poor maintenance, or harsh conditions

• Mission editor options to conduct routine maintenance, repairs, and inspections

• Optional “Maintenance Status” window or digital maint. logbook showing aircraft condition before flight

• System degradation like engine spool times increasing, longer startup sequences, reduced sensor accuracy, hydraulic lag, etc.

Example Applications:

• In a multiplayer squadron: AH-64s that repeatedly perform hot landings or overtorque rotors without maintenance might suffer drivetrain or sensor failures on later flights unless serviced.

• In single-player campaigns: A neglected aircraft in a harsh environment may gradually show reduced performance or suffer critical failures mid-mission, encouraging smart flying and logistics.

Why This Matters:

This would raise immersion, reward disciplined flying, and add a whole new layer of realism and mission design. It turns logistics, planning, and maintenance into part of the game loop, just like in real-world aviation operations.

This system could be opt-in and customizable to suit both casual players and hardcore milsim groups.

---

If the devs are reading this, thank you for the incredible work you’ve done so far. A system like this would push DCS even further into the realm of full-spectrum aviation simulation.

Sorry dude, any opt-in features that add persistence are features I won't opt-in to and I don't think enough people would opt in to justify the amount of work it would take to implement this.

There are strategy games where this idea might find a home, but I don't think MMO-like features would be welcomed by the DCS community.

[Ironhand]

On 6/2/2025 at 12:50 PM, CallsignPunch said:

The goal here isn’t to simulate “broken-down jets” or create a random failure lottery. It's to introduce persistent aircraft identity, flight hour tracking, pilot handling logs, and a structured maintenance system where mission makers or virtual squadrons can choose to simulate wear and perform inspections or repairs between missions.

Out of curiosity, what would be to penalty to the player for constantly mishandling the aircraft he flies? Or are you just proposing this for virtual squadron use, where the individual would be penalized by his squadron members? I know it’s done in civilian sims where the emphasis is only on the flying itself. DCS, however, tends to place the focus on how well you blow things up. While I, personally, like to fly well, I’m still not sure this is something I would use.

Edited yesterday at 12:15 PM by Ironhand

[bephanten]

It's already in the game. Check Heatblurs component model system. Only F4 uses it ATM. It's open to licensing for other third party developers.  Personally Im more likely to buy a module that uses it. 

[Horns]

3 minutes ago, bephanten said:

It's already in the game. Check Heatblurs component model system. Only F4 uses it ATM. It's open to licensing for other third party developers.  Personally Im more likely to buy a module that uses it. 

Does the HB system carry over the aircraft state between missions? I thought that was just within the same mission, I could be wrong though.

[bephanten]

Maybe. When they released the framework, there was no mid game save feature. But they definitely have ambitions for persistence in aircraft state.