Wishlist - Aircraft maintenance "minigame"

[sinelnic]

Hello ED, fellow forumites,

 

I was reviewing the A-10A Flight Manual uploaded by Bwaze (great job!!) and reviewing the systems check procedures, when suddenly came up with a suggestion for a minigame that may give a gameplay incentive to perform those checks correctly, for those who do like such things:

 

The concept is that good aircraft maintenance is like good software maintenance, the pilot or user is actively involved in the process, because some malfunctions cannot be found until the machine is used, as happens with human-made software.

 

The mechanic is called "Grounded Pilot":

1- All flights begin with random failures, to the degree that is expectable from a well maintained aircraft.

1- You perform all pre-flight checks before the mission during startup and until lift-off.

2- At any time during the startup or takeoff run (maybe even until 5 minutes after t/o), you can abort the secuence and contact ground maintenance via a radio command, indicating that you found something that merits aborting the plane.

3- You´re then presented with a form, to indicate the failure(s) you found, which in your opinion makes the aircraft not airworthy.

4- The failures you indicated are evaluated by a technician "algorythm", which will perform the following evaluations:

a- If the failure you indicated in the form is really present in the plane, the failure is repaired immediately

b- If a failure is present that you did not report, the failure is not repaired

c- If any failure you indicated is not really present in the aircraft, you´re grounded and cannot fly the mission, having a CPU pilot take on it with simulated "random" success (this is for campaign purposes).

5- In case "c" does not happen, you´re given back your plane to perform startup again. Failures are still random, except for those which were found in the previous check, which can still be present but with a much lower probability.

 

The idea of "c" is to penalize checking all boxes in the form. I don´t really know what happens to the pilot IRL when his plane is not airworthy, but giving him back his plane automagically repaired (to the extent that he could find the failures) seems a good outcome for a simulation.

 

I believe this is a relatively "simple" addition in that it takes the less effort to integrate with the current state of the software, as it only adds a radio command and an alternative mission end screen (replaced by the form), so a minimal change to the simulator part and one additional screen plus a couple routines in the GUI module.

 

The merit of this mechanic is that it allows you to run the simulation with random failures without the fear that you will not be able to play your mission, while being educative and adding an immersion factor.

 

Hopefully this is considered, opinions are very much welcome!

[shu77]

simulating filling out forms :)

[RogueRunner]

Well, I will be happy if damage/failures are saved with your aircraft, ie if you have a failed HSI or other instrument, it remains failed in subsequent flights until you decide to fix it. Engines will degrade if you run them hot over time etc etc. Pretty much what Leonardo SH is doing with the Maddog 2010 in FS2004.

 

The failure module is thus part of just running the game and not something failed or randomly failed by the mission designer. Of course it could be set mutually exlusive so the user can decide to switch it off and use the old method to test/play with failures also.

 

So in short:

 

Your aircraft accumulates 'hours' over time

Things break because of normal wear and tear and abuse and remains broken until 'fixed' by the user.

Engine management, including hotstarts becomes crucial.

 

This on top of the combat sim would make it the ultimate simulation. :D

Edited July 19, 2010 by RogueRunner

[Frederf]

The programmers could "short cut" this by utilizing simply a record of "hours flown." This universal stat would factor into equations that determine dynamically assign failure probabilities to various systems.

 

100 hours? 0.03% chance of HSI failure per hour

350 hours? 0.15% chance of right engine failure per hour

[sinelnic]

Well from a gameplay perspective, in-flight failures in a combat sim are very tricky to implement, that´s why I concentrated in pre-flight checks.

 

For FSX, it can even be fun to have your engine fail mid-flight, forcing you to apply the correct procedure to perform an emergency landing, fix the problem, and go back to the air, like in the fabulous Do-27 add-on. But in a combat mission, it is a show stopper, you´re failing the mission without doing anything wrong.

 

It is indeed realistic, but from a gameplay perspective, it adds nothing and substracts a lot, at least in my humble opinion.

Edited July 19, 2010 by sinelnic

[RogueRunner]

It is indeed realistic, but from a gameplay perspective, it adds nothing and substracts a lot, at least in my humble opinion.

 

Well, it might be a gameplay issue yes. It is a study sim however and engine and system management is pretty high up on the priority list to get you to and back from your mission. It could be a function that can be disabled for those that do not want to scrub a mission because some system failed.

 

Killing a tank somewhere in no mans land is not just about bushing a button.

 

80% of the time I fly BS is just to get the thing started, flying a few circuits and do precision landings. To include normal wear and tear will just take it to the next level.

[galagamo]

I like the idea of accumulated wear and probable failure accordingly.

It's been done, any FSX user with an A2A AC, and accusim can vouch for that.

[Oscar]

To do this properly, I would think you would need to introduce airframe serial numbers into sim as in the same way you do pilots, ie, 'Pilot Logs' would also have 'Aircraft Logs'.

 

Also, I could see this only beneficial in a single player envirnoment. I don't think it would be practical in a multiplayer environment unless there was a common pool of aircraft serial numbers on the server for allocation to clients as they join.

 

You would also need to implement a hard-coded maintenance schedule so that aircraft could be taken 'out-of-service' for required hourly maintenance checks. How would you handle parts logistics and supply chain delays for depot shipments. How would you implement required depot-level maintenance?

 

Emergency Aircraft Procedures are a huge part of the training schedule and much sim time is spent during IQT, MQT and CT(RAP) covereing these topics. I can see training missions designed with certain failure types being introduced (existing capability), but how many sim pilots are going immediate break-off a mission and RTB when they encounter an Over-G condition for an immediate and reguired airframe inspection? I don't think there are going to be too many, but, that's just my opinion.

 

Great idea - a lot of work to implement properly.

[RogueRunner]

Also, I could see this only beneficial in a single player envirnoment.

 

I agree 100% there

[Toxe]

An addition like this would be pretty great, because with persistent plane(s) that you carry through a campaign there would be a good reason to perform all those preflight checks - other than immersion. You would have a real incentive to handle your engines and other systems with care. Would be brilliant if something like this could be added to the simulation.

 

To be honest I wouldn't even say that ED has to build all this by themselves. The "only" thing they would have to do is to give us functionality to read, modify and influence the aircraft and system state inside and out of the game. Then the community could build their own "hangar and maintenance" management sim all around the game by itself. Actually a couple weeks ago I already took a look at all the Black Shark scripts to check if something like this could already be implemented. But it looks like too much of the juicy stuff is not exportable from out of the simulation. A pity because an addition like this could have sooo much potential.

[wildone_106]

Its an interesting idea! Although I doubt they can integrate such a big feature this late in the dev process? I think its something that would need to be developed along with the rest of the sim along with interface and how it'd impact the overall playability and testing of those systems?

[Sticky]

Hello ED, fellow forumites,

 

I was reviewing the A-10A Flight Manual uploaded by Bwaze (great job!!) and reviewing the systems check procedures, when suddenly came up with a suggestion for a minigame that may give a gameplay incentive to perform those checks correctly, for those who do like such things:

 

The concept is that good aircraft maintenance is like good software maintenance, the pilot or user is actively involved in the process, because some malfunctions cannot be found until the machine is used, as happens with human-made software.

 

The mechanic is called "Grounded Pilot":

1- All flights begin with random failures, to the degree that is expectable from a well maintained aircraft.

1- You perform all pre-flight checks before the mission during startup and until lift-off.

2- At any time during the startup or takeoff run (maybe even until 5 minutes after t/o), you can abort the secuence and contact ground maintenance via a radio command, indicating that you found something that merits aborting the plane.

3- You´re then presented with a form, to indicate the failure(s) you found, which in your opinion makes the aircraft not airworthy.

4- The failures you indicated are evaluated by a technician "algorythm", which will perform the following evaluations:

a- If the failure you indicated in the form is really present in the plane, the failure is repaired immediately

b- If a failure is present that you did not report, the failure is not repaired

c- If any failure you indicated is not really present in the aircraft, you´re grounded and cannot fly the mission, having a CPU pilot take on it with simulated "random" success (this is for campaign purposes).

5- In case "c" does not happen, you´re given back your plane to perform startup again. Failures are still random, except for those which were found in the previous check, which can still be present but with a much lower probability.

 

The idea of "c" is to penalize checking all boxes in the form. I don´t really know what happens to the pilot IRL when his plane is not airworthy, but giving him back his plane automagically repaired (to the extent that he could find the failures) seems a good outcome for a simulation.

 

I believe this is a relatively "simple" addition in that it takes the less effort to integrate with the current state of the software, as it only adds a radio command and an alternative mission end screen (replaced by the form), so a minimal change to the simulator part and one additional screen plus a couple routines in the GUI module.

 

The merit of this mechanic is that it allows you to run the simulation with random failures without the fear that you will not be able to play your mission, while being educative and adding an immersion factor.

 

Hopefully this is considered, opinions are very much welcome!

 

 

No please!!!!! This sounds very boring to me, only worth doing that kind of stuff to get to fly the real thing. For the time it would take them to implement this I would much rather have something else much more important. Please dont waste a single day on this! Come on ppl get real..

[Toxe]

No please!!!!! This sounds very boring to me, only worth doing that kind of stuff to get to fly the real thing. For the time it would take them to implement this I would much rather have something else much more important. Please dont waste a single day on this! Come on ppl get real..

Things like these will always be boring to some and awesome to other people. So who is to tell who is right or wrong? Certainly not one of us. That's why things like these should always be optional. People who like it can enable it and others can ignore it.

 

And as I suggested ED does not even have to fully implement any of this. Simply give us the right API / tools and ways to export / import aircraft data and modify systems and we - the community - can take care of the rest. I for one would be very interested in something like that and I guess I am not the only one.

[Kegetys]

I would like a system that, if you skip the pre-flight checks then there is a small chance of failure for everything you didn't check. And if you do the check then there won't be failures. I think this would give a reason to go through the checks without the failures being too annoying to deal with and it should be pretty easy to implement. (With an option to turn this off too).

[CAT_101st]

I don't think the time spent on this would be worth it for the amount of people that would use it. I like the idea and it would work very well with my groop. but it does need a little more refinement in how it would work as a option. somthing like a post flight check list to report problems would make it a little more simple ( just click on the problem you had during flight to report it ). I think this type of programing would require missions to be linked in a campain only. Not sure that this would work for Multyplayer Flight groop singel missions. How would the info be moved to the next mission or saved for the indavidual pilot? I say MP missions because I don't fly SP at all. I can't stand not having a real whing man to give orders too.

[Haukka81]

Any one remember old PC flight sim named as TORNADO??

 

There was accumulated wear and probable failure accordingly. And it is relly old flightsim.

 

And in janes F15 you can some times take hit but there may not be instant failures or warning lights, but after some time you got system failure etc.

 

-haukka81

[Frederf]

But in a combat mission, it is a show stopper, you´re failing the mission without doing anything wrong.

 

This is a problem with how missions are scored. Not bombing the bridge because there's 10 MiGs on CAP there might be a mission failure but it should be a pilot performance A+ for using good judgment. Mission success and pilot performance need to be judged separately, like Falcon 4.

 

Also the "dynamic" campaign system needs to be changed from a scheme that honestly feels like punishment because your fellow pilot or T-90 driver is an absolute blockhead. The fact that you were supposed to go backward in the campaign nearly as often as forward to feel like a protracted tug of war was supposed to be a feature but it really feels like a punishment and not a feature at all.

[Avilator]

simulating filling out forms :)

Well, as the saying goes, "Once the paperwork equals the takeoff weight of the airplane, then you can fly.":D

[nomdeplume]

I like the idea but I don't think it's valuable to implement until the game has a dynamic, persistent campaign world. For example: how many people have "bird strikes" set at more than 0%? I've encountered it once in a MP mission - engine flameout just after takeoff, so I landed, taxied back to the parking area, shut down and waited a few minutes for a new plane, then went off again.

 

This wasn't so bad because there were other people doing things, but in a SP mission it would either be a complete waste of time, or if things were already running, simply a random chance of failing the mission which is completely outside of the player's control. If that sounds like fun to you, then just add a bunch of "mission start" triggers that randomly pop up a message saying "sorry, turns out your aircraft is not airworthy, mission failed". Voila!

 

If the missions were generated dynamically, then it wouldn't be so bad - the mission could be scrubbed and a new one created if it still seemed necessary. But with the current setup, the only choices are to replay the mission (or another in the same stage) or move back a stage. Both options detract from immersion.

 

As someone who does go through the entire startup procedure, it would be really nice to actually have a reason for doing it other than OCD. But I think a lot of other things need to happen first, and only once those are done would something like this add to the game. And I think it would need to be something the player has the power to prevent.

[evilnate]

I think some of these suggestions would be good, as a option for procedural junkies and only after a dynamic campaign is ironed out.

[Frederf]

I was going to go into DCS:BS and set all the failure probabilities for all the systems to very small non-zero amounts to keep me on my toes. However when I looked I was saddened to see that basically only 3 systems could really be set to fail when I wanted more trivial and diverse failures.

[Bwaze]

A-10C maintenance "minigame":

 

127th AMXS Skills Competition

 

The full time technicians of the 127th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron have developed a unique training blitz which combines job skills with friendly competition on the flight line and in the hangars. Crew chiefs of the 191st AMXS squadron worked in teams of four, competing at tasks such as towing aircraft, changing tires, and adding necessary lubricants and fluids to the A-10 attack aircraft.

 

Click here to see a video of the action

 

 

 

Huh, he said "lubricant"...

[Grimes]

Interesting idea and concept. I think it would be perfect as a training supplement rather than an incorporated mini-game that has a slight effect on actual gameplay. A guiding hand of sorts to allow players to learn the cockpit step by step is something I feel should have been part of Black Shark. Watching a video/track over and over and printing out the startup checklist isn't exactly my idea of learning how to jump start an aircraft. As a pre-mission mini-game, I'd have to disagree though. This is a flight sim, not a flight sim RPG. Not that RPG elements would be a terrible addition, on the contrary, its probably one of the few things that can salvage the genre. I'd just rather see a concentrated effort that includes multiple and meaningful RPG elements in place of a few half-assed features added with each release.

[digital_steve]

DCS: Forms

TFS/ED have finally come out with information regarding the much-anticipated next step in the DCS series.

DCS: Forms will have you dotting i's, crossing t's and signing on dotted lines like some kind of lawyer on amphetamines.

ED have stated that this step in the series will feature unheard of before fidelity including, for the first time, interactive voice manipulation. You will now have the ability to take a hold of a form and state clearly "what the f*ck is this for?" or "for God's sake mate, how long does it take for that part to be shipped?".

The AI for the new DCS title has been upgraded to the much yearned for 'dynamic campaign' where random forms are generated... ensuring that no game is exactly the same.

ED anticipate a 6 month release date, but stated that we should probably add 24 months to that because they were telling porky pies.

[159th_Falcon]

:megalol::megalol::megalol:

 

Yeah, for each hour of maintenance there is at least another hour of bloody paperwork.......

(in most western, EASA/FAA approved countries/operations that is)