I typed this lightning fast, so. It has so many grammatical errors. Please bear with me
All these individual concepts are something I posted here as suggestions back in the days. All of them got cancelled by moderators before moving from the pending state. Last time I asked one of the moderator, it was because the article lacked information. The person told me it was too short. My concept has more than enough letters, and images. The thing is that they seem to not even remove the pending articles if I post it again refining the articles. They probably don’t want to read it again, they know it’s forbidden by the rules. If it’s still pending, making a better version of the same suggestion is not allowed. Back in the days, the generative Language models were not available. So I had to take a long time fixing grammatical errors. What I meant by “back in the days” is literally 2019~2022 era. I was most active during that time. I was still a teenager in 2019. Even then, I think most of my concepts are purely beneficial for the game’s overall quality as a source of entertainment. I’m caffeinated right now, my brain is not calm. I’m out.
The max force output should be shared for ailerons and elevators.
The game allows the user to exert twice the force only when controlling both axis.
This won’t look unnatural to you if you are used to seeing RCs manipulated with electric servos. Modern jets have powered surfaces actuated with hydraulics and motors etc. So this restriction is only for ww1 ~ early post-war era vehicles.
The diagonal stick movement allows for a slightly longer travel of the hand position. So it allows the user to output a higher total force. The push/pull movement is less tighter, helping with the principle of leverage.
Also, a longer control stick helps with the speed in which the stick can be moved.
Of course it is really fast to move the stick to the neutral position. The neutral stick position changes based on the angle of the incoming airflow. If the aircraft is rolling, the natural stick position is corrected to the position ailerons take least amount of resistance. The same can be said for elevators, the downwash changes the neutral stick position drastically outside of the mere AoA. But it is a nonsense, it is not suited to implement in this game. I’d like to pretend it is already modelled, though not really there. To think of the tedious work of implementing this entire system in individual flight models. So the best option would be to simply reduce the speed in which the stick can be moved based on the 2 factors.
The best method would be to calculate the theoretically possible deflection angles for both surfaces beyond ±100%. If the ailerons are fully deflected, that would be ±100%. Even if the elevators could be deflected for 70% at a specific velocity, if the ailerons are deflected at the same time the 70% elevator deflection would be impossible. Because the same arm is controlling one stick to manipulate both surfaces. If the “max” angless are 70 : 40 originally, the total force output would be 110%. So we divide the current angles by 1.1, though this won’t result in a realistic figure. It would be 63:36 if the stick was titled fully. So it won’t exceed the 100% mark. But, that won’t compensate the diagonal movement. So the 1.1 factor here should be multiplied by 0.7, only because this is in a pure diagonal movement. If the resistances are not proportional to the deflection angles in a liner fashion, simply dividing the theoretical deflection angles won’t result in realistic values. But I digress. It’s still better than nothing.
The time it takes to deflect the control stick should get slower as the stick angle reaches near the max angles. Think of a weight training, it’s not instantaneous unlike in the game.
The stick movement speed(%) =100(1 - deflection x deflection)
If the stick can be moved to 70%, at the angle of 56% the speed is reaching 36% of the original. Though ailerons tend to shift the neutral position because of the incoming flow.
Ho-103 should be separated into Ho-103 early and Ho-103 late.
Ho-103 early shouldn’t have Ma-102 rounds in the belt. Ho-103 late should be fine with the potent high-explosives.
Just like M2 machineguns. The late war vehicles should be equipped with Ho-103 late by default. And the early war vehicles should be equipped with Ho-103 early. But the latter should be able to swap the armament with Ho-103 late to enhance the combat capability. Though definitely not necessary, those guns should be considered “gun pods” to allow swapping of guns mid-match. Preferably, the applied gun pods should affect the BR in the game mode. Or the current weapon swap should be accessible mid-match.
G-load based jamming likeability system should be added.
The early modification Hispanos should Jam only when the aircraft is experiencing a high G-load.
Almost all guns should be affected by the G-load slightly. This is a case in M2 Browning machineguns too.
When the gun overheats, the red ring appears around the cursor progressively. A G-load indicator should appear outside of the ring. The G-load indicator should appear counter-clockwise, the color should be blue by default. So the maximum allowed time of firing before jamming the gun is shortened temporarily. I’ll be adding drawings.
The “weapon maintenance” crew skill’s effect on the time for guns to jam should be reduced to 1/4 of the current strength. If the default time is too short, there is no need to touch this.
The modification of the British Hispano 20mm cannons should affect the BR too. (By 0.1 for each tier)
The increase in drag from aircraft skin damage should be at least below 1 forth of the current configuration because the game would be more fun that way. The biplanes from WW1 event had pretty wonky speed reduction from minor damages, I think they can be random sometimes. This is true for most aircraft in the game.
20mm HE rounds are actually overperforming.
Even if the damages are reduced, if the “VNE and G-tolerance reduction from spar damage” is introduced, it won’t be an issue. If the fleeing aircraft stopped dogfighting, they can just return home with the otherwise fatal wounds. If they kept maneuvering, it would be an issue for nearly dying aircraft frames.
ALL aircraft guns should have a chance to detonate on impact. This probability should be higher for those with Minengeschoß rounds. Soviet 23mm and Ho-5, Ho-103 should have slightly higher chances to detonate from impact too. The chance and the resulting damage should be based on the ammo composition of the belt. Unrealistic? This is a fun mechanics to “balance” the powerful round without sacrificing the uniqueness of the said ammunition type.
MG151’s damage should be re-calculated.
7.5mm MAC machinegun’s AP rounds should be re-calculated.
The wing flutter would affect the wing gun’s accuracy.
The reticle shape should be configurable to match the first person gunsight’s shape.
With auto tilt.
AoA wheel should be added.
The AoA wheel literally just restrict the maximum AoA that can be exerted with mouse aim. So that a player can make a slow turn to conserve energy. The green number on the bottom indicate the maximum allowed AoA.
It allows to roll faster.
The wheel’s upper limit should be configurable for each vehicle, it should be remembered. The gun convergence should be personalized for individual vehicles too. With the ability to prioritize an universal convergence set by a player at whim.
The most common bind would be a key + wheel up or wheel down.
The blue ring should serve the purpose of a G-load indicator. So the visual representation should stay the same regardless of the armament. Instead of having an outer ring overlapping. The red circle now should be crescent shaped. A thin blue line should extend further inboard. So that the thin line can indicate the overlap with the heat indicator. The longer blue line should represent the reduced heat tolerance for the most stressed gun of the vehicle. If Machinegun is nearly jamming from overheating, the blue line indicate the strength of the effect for machineguns specifically. The G-load-to-strength ratio depends on the armament types, early Hispano 20mm cannons would look like this.
A6M specific ”Special maneuver" mode.
Without pushing the “Special maneuver” mode, the pilot’s stick force is halved.
This is simulated by reducing the theoretical deflection angle by half, though the resistance is not relative to the angle.
During the “special maneuver” mode, the aircraft is incapable of operating ordnances.
The time it takes for switching the special maneuver mode takes about 0.7 seconds.
A player is capable of spamming the button. It just takes 1.4~1.6 seconds to go back to the same mode if the button is pushed twice before switching once.
It’s the AoA button different from the AoA wheel.
So Fw 190’s wings now explode. Fw 190 can both roll and turn at the same time relatively efficiently.
Spitfire with drum mags can’t fire during hard turns. They can conserve energy while maintaining the decent maneuverability by restricting the AoA. (They can be tap fired)
A6Ms can’t roll and turn at the same time, restricting the high speed maneuverability. They can’t operate the guns while using both arms, because the trigger is located near the throttle lever.
me109 and La-5/La-7, F4U suffer from the extremely short range. They have to reduce throttle to stay airborne longer.
P-51s and Japanese vehicles in general now shine with the extreme air time.
Thunderbolt would be less sufferable as the altitude in which the combat is taking place is relatively higher thanks to the 3 minutes climb-skipping and the bombers.
Me 262 and Meteor F3 don’t have to face post war super machines anymore. Because they have a place in the prop tier.
Yaks and La-5/La-7 can just stay under the AAA’s cover to the one’s heart’s content.
“Gun condition” system
Even if the guns don’t jam. Keeping them over heated damage the guns. They become less accurate.
“Fake recoil” system.
When firing a cannon higher in the caliber, the camera moves forward for a brief moment.
This effect is minimized when the aircraft is heavy, the size factor works as the “stability” information.
The momentum of the aircraft should enhance the penetration value of the rounds.
A6M’s special maneuver mode should restrict the ability to control the throttle too.
Gun condition should not be lowered from the G-load overlap. They only give the guns the chance to jam.
The reduced weapon accuracy should be not too much, and the rate of charging up the heat should increase from the damage.
about the fake recoil. If the aircraft is looking at right/left side in the screen, the camera should move relative to the aircraft. The distance of the camera movement should be reduced for the sideway movement. It’s simply there to make the guns feel more beefy.
The backward camera movement should happen in VR cockpit too. The instantaneous reduction in speed puts the user with the excessive forward momentum. Yes i know it is unrealistic. But I want the force feedback. There should be a slider to control the magnitude in the option.
The thickness of the tracers should be configurable. They are affected by the resolution right now. It’s unrealistic for human eyes to perceive huge chunks of light bulbs from the 7mm tracer rounds. They should be toned down by the players. Of course the current tracer size should be the maximum for E-sports ready™ reasons. Especially when playing on VR screens it is obvious how the lower resolution is giving much thicker tracers. Also, TAA and FXAA reduce the size obviously because the effect is removing the edges. At least there should be an “Anti-aliasing compensation” toggle.
There should be a “Too low engine temperature” HP reduction penalty much like overheating is an issue for the engines.
Current “Auto-flaps” should be separated and refined.
F4F and F4U’s flaps should move based on the resistance. If the aircraft is maneuvering, they retract from the increased resistance.
Higher AoA at the same speed = retracted.
N1K’s mercury switch should coordinate the flap position based on the G-load and the IAS in which the aircraft is flying at.
Higher G-load = extended.
That means the flaps would retract as long as the aircraft is flying straight even at low speed.
There is a manual position mode for landing, it’s a separate function from the auto mode.
The inconsistent flap performance should be addressed. J21 turns too well with flaps. Is the method for calculating the flap’s performance the same for older models? The radiators on certain aircraft should increase the lift. Dive brakes too. Dive brakes for P-38, D4Y (Deployment angles differed for each scale irl, a modelling error on gaijin’s side.), B7A alike should increase the lift marginally. And the CP should move forward, it is the crucial part of the late model P-38s. Is the propwash really modelled to interact with flaps? Or the base value higher for those with the higher propwash exposure area? Even without the thrust?
BF110 C and E’s wing performances, as well as the record for anyone who modified them better get dug up. Are the wing’s dimension accurate? I think they underperform quite severely. The one with 30mm acts weird depending on the speed compared to other BF110s.
Fw190’s AoA to enter unrecoverable tail heavy flat spin should be addressed. Having full fuel does not solve the CG issue.
Spitfire’s energy retention and the lift coefficient should be addressed. All spitfires with the same wing type(+tips) should have the same base aerodynamics for the wings except for ailerons.
The cooling efficiency of La-5/La-7 and Yaks, XP-50 should be addressed. La-5 and XP-50 used to run extremely hot before a certain point. The updated FMs changed the cooling efficiency to the extremity.
Is the cowl’s thrust cancelling effect modelled? The blade roots won’t contribute to the thrust even if the shape is designed to take advantage of the slow travel + flight.
Yak-9U’s weird engine behavior when the prop pitch and throttle are reduced should be remodeled entirely, from the ground up. Because it is hella sketchy.
A6M2 mod 11’s performance should be compared to A6M2. The land based variant had twisted wings too. A6M2’s current performance is that of a first batch production. 129th production model had revised ailerons to delay the oneset of a flatter. It boosted the top speed to 532kph from 510kph, though the base CD coefficient would be the same. The flutter for A6M2 happens around 620kph in this game, 120kph off. The flatter produces drag for all aircraft. That’s one of the reason why A6Ms had “Worse” dive performance. The drag is not liner. The structural integrity is improved for A6M5, A6M5 ko, A6M5 otsu, A6M5 hei. The thicker outer skin thickness improved the controllability for elevators, this is stated for A6M5 hei specifically though it is well expected the same thing happened to other variants. So basically, the lower the speed for the flatter to occur = worse dive acceleration past the specific velocity.
The manual override for the speed for the visual flatter should be implemented for specific vehicles.
A6M and Ki-43 should be given relatively lower speed for the occurrence of the flatter. The flatter should increase the base wing drag for all aircraft.
My grammar might be bad but I have 136 IQ so you guys should be serious about what I’m telling anyone reading this. I achieved this when I was 10 years old, in a psychiatric ward. You heard me right, a psychiatric ward.
The big orange gunsight can be toggled off by “switch gunsight” meant for the cockpit view.
The targeting system should prioritize the center of the view instead of where the vehicle is heading at in VR.
Schragemusik should be able to be fired without entering the “Schragemusik mode”. The camera movement from entering the schragemusik mode should not be there in VR. We should be able to fire the guns by binding the trigger key directly.
I’m still waiting for PTABs and Ta-dan & San-go bombs. And AB 500 / 250-2 with shaped charges. There is no way “It’s hard to balance CAS with cluster bombs” is a valid statement at this point.
More stealth-based game mode can be created as a branch
By making a mask image of visible portion of the cockpit view.
By applying the mask to the third person view in a similar way to the skybox.
The worst case scenario would be to make a duplicate render without vehicles. The mask can be used to define the priority of 2 unique layers by areas.
The practical way would be to load the necessary components and 3d model but not render them until the part of the vehicle is visible inside the mask area. The vehicle should fade out instead of instantly disappearing. They should appear with a gradual translucence, so they won’t pop out.
Gunners should give a better rearward visibility by adding the 2nd layer to the mask, if the gunner is unconscious, the sight should be lost. For aircraft with more than 3 gunners, they should be given all-around visibility. The generation of the mask can be automated except for the crude gunner seats.
Communication would be very important.
Brigand should be considered a bomber, it is allowed to host a formation of Brigands.