Realistic Reliability? Another possible checkmark?

[Buznee]

I know there are many sims that implement mechanical failure of aircraft systems not just due to combat damage, but purely through part failure from quality etc. Would it not be neat if once in a while your engine start would run into trouble (hot starts, flame-outs, eventhough you used the proper engine starting procedure?) How about FOD ingestion? Or how about instrumentation failures, weapon system failures, blade tracking and balancing issues, bugs and birds on your wind screen, wipers not working properly, or how about low tire pressure or alignement issues. I understand the argument could be that realistically you go through a preflight to check many of these things before actually operating the aircraft and if things are not working properly than you don't go up.

 

Just some ideas to throw around. I definately think that things like this add an entirely new immersion to the sim because now you have to anticipate and be "on the ball" for when items go wrong. Currently you start the engines and you don't even think about a high EGT if you do everything properly. Having a little chaotic nature added to the systems would have you eyeballing things a bit more to make sure that items are operating correctly.

[joey45]

I had an engine blow up on take-off once.. scared the hell out of me..

 

it all depends on the game engine.

[Rhino4]

*Begin Rant*

People romanticize this type of thing all the time, but the reality is that while this is a simulation, it's also a game and there needs to be a balance between super-realism and game-play. Who wants to play a two-hour mission just to have their engines go down when they're five minutes away from the flight line? Sounds cool to have to worry about failures and such, but when you're in the middle of a campaign or online mission and your bird goes down through no fault or your own or the enemy's I doubt you'll sit there staring at the wreckage all starry eyed thinking, "Thank god I get to play this mission over again. I was so hoping this would happen." And that's assuming you get through a good chunk of the mission first. Let's look at what would happen if the failure happened right away: You click fly and sit through a two minute load screen depending on your computer specs and then you're sitting in a dark cockpit ready to bring it to life. You get five minutes into it and then your apu fails before you can bring your second engine online...Well crap, now what? Guess I have to hit esc, jump out of the mission (and take a failure if I'm in campaign mode which means I'll have to go back a whole stage), and then go through the whole process again. Hope it doesn't happen twice in a row, eh?

 

...I just don't get it. It's like those people who get all starry eyed over the Hind. How you romanticize an underpowered, underweaponed, jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none relic that should have seen its coffin years ago, I'll never understand. I guess maybe people watch too many movies where the Hind is a big-bad-killing machine that only happens to get taken down by the sheerest luck. In reality, fully loaded at altitude it could barely get off the ground without a takeoff roll...It can't even hover fully loaded...What kind of helicopter can't hover while carrying a weapons load?

*End Rant*

[vrv]

*Begin Rant*

People romanticize this type of thing all the time, but the reality is that while this is a simulation, it's also a game and there needs to be a balance between super-realism and game-play. Who wants to play a two-hour mission just to have their engines go down when they're five minutes away from the flight line? Sounds cool to have to worry about failures and such, but when you're in the middle of a campaign or online mission and your bird goes down through no fault or your own or the enemy's I doubt you'll sit there staring at the wreckage all starry eyed thinking, "Thank god I get to play this mission over again. I was so hoping this would happen." And that's assuming you get through a good chunk of the mission first. Let's look at what would happen if the failure happened right away: You click fly and sit through a two minute load screen depending on your computer specs and then you're sitting in a dark cockpit ready to bring it to life. You get five minutes into it and then your apu fails before you can bring your second engine online...Well crap, now what? Guess I have to hit esc, jump out of the mission (and take a failure if I'm in campaign mode which means I'll have to go back a whole stage), and then go through the whole process again. Hope it doesn't happen twice in a row, eh?

 

...I just don't get it. It's like those people who get all starry eyed over the Hind. How you romanticize an underpowered, underweaponed, jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none relic that should have seen its coffin years ago, I'll never understand. I guess maybe people watch too many movies where the Hind is a big-bad-killing machine that only happens to get taken down by the sheerest luck. In reality, fully loaded at altitude it could barely get off the ground without a takeoff roll...It can't even hover fully loaded...What kind of helicopter can't hover while carrying a weapons load?

*End Rant*

 

Were talking about the Ka-50 not the Hind...just making sure. Apparently you don't like the Hind. The Ka-50 isn't the pinnacle of technology either but she is still sexy along with the Mi-24. Back to the topic. I have had a few failures before but you should be able to disable or minimize them in the "game" mode if more are added.

[Obiwan]

Just some ideas to throw around. I definately think that things like this add an entirely new immersion to the sim because now you have to anticipate and be "on the ball" for when items go wrong. Currently you start the engines and you don't even think about a high EGT if you do everything properly. Having a little chaotic nature added to the systems would have you eyeballing things a bit more to make sure that items are operating correctly.

 

The chaotic nature comes with combat. The Ka-50 is harder to hot start than, say, a Bell 206 (where you have to keep the starter pressed until you reach about 60% N1). As far engines overheating, that does happen. I dare you to hover for a prolonged time with a good wind coming from one side. I was suprised when my engine overheated and failed. Loved it though!

 

Tire pressure? I don't think you'll find another flightsim where your tires pop on a hard landing! Foreign object ingestion? Try some freezing rain or snow and see how your engine holds up without anti-ice. I haven't tried to suck in enough dust in a hover over a field to see if the engines would fail without dust filter, but somehow suspect they will.

 

And to Rhino4: I know you are referring to older versions of the Hind. Newer ones do have more power and are lighter (fixed landing gear vs retractable for example). But also the Ka-50 has just enough power to hover fully loaded at low altitude. Try a hover at high altitude (try that high altitude mission) and you won't be able to hover her OGE either. Also, on only one engine, I always find myself jettison rocket pods and discharging Vikhers just stay aloft.

 

I think the realism and game elements are excellently balanced in Black Shark.

[ruprecht]

With respect Obi, the OP doesn't seem to be referring to failures of the sort that occur in response to abuse (dust ingestion, icing etc) but more the "mean time between failure" type where something just quits for no reason. Like you're bumbling along and suddenly your ABRIS goes blank (and not from battle damage).

 

I sort of agree with Rhino on these, but see that there's a place for noncritical MTBF failures. Essentially anything that completely cripples you (multiple engine failure, complete electrical failure etc) would end up getting restarted and that is more an annoyance than a challenge. But smaller MTBF failures, which challenge you rather than force a restart, would be welcome to me.

[Obiwan]

Ah, sorry. I misread his post then.

 

But why does one need random failures if there are plenty of bullets whizzing around that can create them :)

[ruprecht]

But why does one need random failures if there are plenty of bullets whizzing around that can create them :)

 

Why do you fly on fully realistic, when there are helpful and colourful HUD radars and easy flight models and stuff available? :)

[Sarge55]

Touche

[RichardG]

Some of my best simming moments were when unexpected equipment failures occured. Quickly figuring out the problem, determining if the problem can be corrected, then fixing it, all while staying airborne and calculating emergency landing field really gets my blood going.

 

To every man his own I suppose.

[wickedpenguin]

Some of my best simming moments were when unexpected equipment failures occured. Quickly figuring out the problem, determining if the problem can be corrected, then fixing it, all while staying airborne and calculating emergency landing field really gets my blood going.

 

To every man his own I suppose.

 

I agree with this. Some of my favorite moments in the sim have been emergencies as well - whether caused by a system failure or enemy fire. "It's time to shine," as they say.

 

I'll be cruising along, keeping an eye outside the windows, thinking about a plan of- BOOM! The helo jerks left. "Right engine fire." Right fuel cutoff. Cut the right fuel pump. Left throttle to emergency. Watch that airspeed... don't let it drop... don't want to loose translational lift. Unload the rocket pods. Squeeze off the Vikhrs. "Main hydro". Lower the gear before the hydraulics bleed out. Fire's out. Engage the APU to burn off fuel weight. Dive for the deck, get low out of firing range of whatever hit me. Scan the instruments. Airspeed indicator's out. I look up. My pitot tube's been blown off the nose. All I've got left is GPS ground speed. That'll do.

 

You go from calm to living on the edge in mere seconds. I love it.

[ruprecht]

Wow penguin, I'd love to have your coolness under fire!

 

BOOM! The helo jerks left. "Right engine fir... BANG WHOOOOSH "Ruprecht has ejected".

 

:)

[Feuerfalke]

Agreed. Bringing a wounded bird home is the most thrilling part of most sims for me and the more realistic, the more fun it is.

 

I also had some random failures in one or the other mission, but in general most mission-builders leave these failures out. On the other hand, if somebody like the IP really misses these sort of failure, it's no big issue to load missions, change reliability and save it again.

 

Doesn't take that long and if that brings you closer to realism, it should definitely be worth it.

[ARM505]

Random failures in real life happen - but they fail in the game world of DCS, IMHO purely because you're actually the only 'playable' person in the entire universe, ie you can't just climb into another chopper that's also busy with a mission, a la Falcon 4 (for example). Basically, the progression of the entire world hinges solely on your performance in it (kind of a 'the sun revolves around the earth' philosophy), and not as it would in reality, where you're just another tiny cog in the whole show, as it were. No matter how successfully you may deal with any emergency, in the overall picture, you've still failed - and normally very badly too. So even if you're as quick as wickedpenguin there, the game still calls you a loser. :)

 

Hint to developers: If you can find a game mechanic that avoids this, is technically feasible, and fits into your development schedule, you'll be winners. ;)

[Triggerhappy69]

Wow penguin, I'd love to have your coolness under fire!

 

BOOM! The helo jerks left. "Right engine fir... BANG WHOOOOSH "Ruprecht has ejected".

 

:)

 

:megalol:.... Good one mate..

[Jg2001_Rasputin]

I find myself often eager to get shot and damaged just to try to get my little sweet black shark back to base, or in a field with most pieces still on the chopper. Is this sick?

[Tucano_uy]

Random failures happen IRL only once in maybe thousand hours. I think it was discussed before in some other thread but the failure options in DCS is indeed very limited and usually quite critical (complete loss of one engine or other system), the ones that determine that the flight is a no go if it happens on the ground or a RTB if it happens in flight.

I think it would be nice to have some other less critical failures, like engine vibration, or hydraulics pressure drop (not just going down to zero), that all the equipment that is checkeable (laser warning, flare dispenser, extinguisher, etc) would fail sometime (thus checking it on start up would really make sense). With this kind of minor failures, it would be pilot's decision to go/no go or to continue the mission or return to base. I mean, it's quite clear to me that if I have lost one engine and hydraulics, I'll try to come back home. But what if your laser warning failed, or your fuel quantity indicator is not working... ? That opens a new perspective as us as pilots will decide how bad it is and if we go or not.

 

In short, if there is a switch, button, lever, light, chime, display or something to check that a system works or not, then that system should fail sometime. Otherwise it's just a cosmetical addition. Again, failures happen once every thousend hours, as somebody said above, I wouldn't like to have a system failure every second flight.

[-Bazong-]

... ... ...

 

Hint to developers: If you can find a game mechanic that avoids this, is technically feasible, and fits into your development schedule, you'll be winners. ;)

 

I'd really like to see something like that!! :thumbup:

 

More random system failures would be cool. But, even cooler would be if the game tracked the choppers condition in a dynamic campaign and the likelyhood of failures depended on the time between check-ups, recent battle damage and/or stress, the moons position relative that of venus etc..

 

In short, I like peoples thoughts about how system failures and the pleasure of landing in one piece after failures would really start to make sense in a more immersive campaign environment..

I really hope we'll get there some day.

[Feuerfalke]

IMHO these things depend 99% on the mission-builder.

 

ED gave us all the tools to make the simulation and the battlefield more realistic. Not perfect in every single regard, no doubt, but many things are already possible but simply not used:

System failures, medium altitude SAM, working EWRs, enemy reacting to intrusion detection, attacks and leaks in the defense, calling for fixed wings to take out helos or ground-targets, units fighting units, full-scale-battles going on, etc. are all possible at least via triggers, but they are rarely used in missions.

 

So IMHO the question is rather, how realistic we want it to be.

Do we really want WW3/Fulda-Gap-Scenarios where you can hover unharmed at >5000m all mission long? Do we really want to see 90% of the airdefenses in the first row of the frontlines and the tanks waiting behind them as price once you got through? Do we really want to call missions "complex" because they are suicide due to 10.000 MANPADs, but could be easily won with a single tank-platoon just rolling over the masses of stinger-soldiers right to the target? Or do we on the other hand, really want to fall out of the sky after 40min of flight, just before the primary target, because of a random mechanical malfunction?

 

Long story short: IMHO ED doesn't have to change much. We just need to use the tools that are already present and we must be willing to face the fact, that we will have to change the way we play this simulation or be slaughtered in masses if the battlefield becomes what it should, what it could, and what it is wanted to be, here.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Feuerfalke

[REL]

 

In short, if there is a switch, button, lever, light, chime, display or something to check that a system works or not, then that system should fail sometime. Otherwise it's just a cosmetical addition. Again, failures happen once every thousend hours, as somebody said above, I wouldn't like to have a system failure every second flight.

 

Totally agree with Tucano_uy!!!

 

I'd really like to see something like that!! :thumbup:

 

More random system failures would be cool. But, even cooler would be if the game tracked the choppers condition in a dynamic campaign and the likelyhood of failures depended on the time between check-ups, recent battle damage and/or stress, the moons position relative that of venus etc..

 

 

 

Both of those suggestions (allot More random system failures and persistence in choppers condition) are going to take the Sim a few levels up if implemented as optional features - that will serve the arcade/hard cord simmers as one.

[RedTiger]

IMHO these things depend 99% on the mission-builder.

 

-snip-

 

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner! :clap:

 

Strong mission building capability is the key. If you want realism, well, there's a reason why this is what real militaries tend to prefer.

Edited August 24, 2009 by RedTiger

[Yo-Yo]

How about FOD ingestion?

 

 

Try to dustblowing with dust cyclones off. You will be surprised.

[Feuerfalke]

Heh, if they'd fly as low as we do, they'd already know :doh:

[Buznee]

Random failures happen IRL only once in maybe thousand hours. I think it was discussed before in some other thread but the failure options in DCS is indeed very limited and usually quite critical (complete loss of one engine or other system), the ones that determine that the flight is a no go if it happens on the ground or a RTB if it happens in flight.

I think it would be nice to have some other less critical failures, like engine vibration, or hydraulics pressure drop (not just going down to zero), that all the equipment that is checkeable (laser warning, flare dispenser, extinguisher, etc) would fail sometime (thus checking it on start up would really make sense). With this kind of minor failures, it would be pilot's decision to go/no go or to continue the mission or return to base. I mean, it's quite clear to me that if I have lost one engine and hydraulics, I'll try to come back home. But what if your laser warning failed, or your fuel quantity indicator is not working... ? That opens a new perspective as us as pilots will decide how bad it is and if we go or not.

 

In short, if there is a switch, button, lever, light, chime, display or something to check that a system works or not, then that system should fail sometime. Otherwise it's just a cosmetical addition. Again, failures happen once every thousend hours, as somebody said above, I wouldn't like to have a system failure every second flight.

 

Just wanted to thank everyone for the feedback. If DCS already has failure implementation (not due to battle damage) I was not aware of it.

I totally agree. If the system does not need monitoring than the instrumentation there is purely cosmetic.

[Panzertard]

IMHO these things depend 99% on the mission-builder.

 

 

We, the collective demand to get his name. Give me his name and I'll talk some common sense into him ...

If it's GG I'll slam a couple of vodka into him while I'll be chanting "Screeenshot, screenshot" to sedate him.