Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#4603571 - 07/13/22 05:06 AM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
I ran a few more tests with my ridiculously low average_hrs numbers and had a system failure on virtually every mission. I next plan to take Bletchley's numbers for early to mid war rotaries and will roughly half them to see how often I get failures with those numbers.

I have also concluded that an aircraft can have multiple failures in a single mission, but if it is a duplicate of a prior failure, there does not seem to be any additional effect.

One more factor to consider if aircraft are given a higher failure rate: there will likely be an overall increase in AI deaths and squadron attrition, due to the fact that the AI is pretty dumb on how it handles system failures. The AI will break for the nearest airbase, but it does not seem to treat this as an emergency situation and will keep flying at full power until the engine blows up and it crashes. If it does reach an airbase without crashing, it will then leisurely circle the airbase instead of attempting to land immediately, again leading to crashes if the engine catches fire, etc.


“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4603574 - 07/13/22 05:42 AM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 936
VonS Offline
WWI Flight Sims on a Mac
VonS  Offline
WWI Flight Sims on a Mac
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 936
Great progress gents' and interesting findings BB - thanks for posting those. I run BH&H2 with the stock UE/PE failure nos. via the simulation.xml file, and there are indeed occasionally one or two fellows from Flight A or B who have some kind of engine trouble and usually end up landing in a meadow (usually on every second or third flight, on average). I look forward to your results with Bletchley's values halved for further randomness (and attrition). Hopefully some really good/precise failure nos. will be cooked up eventually that JJJ can then implement in the MultiMod.

At this point, for my own tweaks and tunings, I will probably stick with the stock UE/PE failure nos. in simulation.xml but will reduce, to 2/3s of those stock values, the more fragile failure nos. included in the half-dozen or so aircraft that feature failure-xdp entries - should provide me with some solid attrition and seat-of-pants flying until some better nos. for the MultiMod are found. Hope to do some testing of my own in a week or two (currently either busy with work or wrestling with my FlightGear setup -- WoFF is a joy to optimize biggrin compared to FlightGear).

Cheers all and happy flying,
Von S smile2

Last edited by VonS; 07/15/22 03:53 AM. Reason: Edited post.

~ For my various FM/AI/FPS/DM Mods. for First Eagles 2, WoFF, RoF & WoTR, and tips for FlightGear, recommended is to check over my CombatAce profile (https://combatace.com/profile/86760-vons/) and to click on the "About Me" tab while there. ~
#4605314 - 08/07/22 05:35 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Bletchley Offline
Member
Bletchley  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
I have completed a '100 hour' test with my early rotaries setting:

Early-Mid Rotaries : 8% per hour failure rate (i.e. for 1 hour missions you should expect to see on average one failure every 12-13 missions)

By my calculations this should have had a failure rate of 8% per hour, and after 100 hours this was 7.8%, which is close enough for me.

Based on the comments received I have narrowed the categories to 3 ( as the two middle ones seemed so close together to make little noticeable difference in practice:

Early-Mid Rotaries : 10% per hour failure rate : Oberursel U.0 (Fokker E I; Pfalz A I), Oberursel U II (Fokker D II; Fokker E II; Fokker E III; Pfalz E III), Oberursel UR II (Fokker Dr I; Fokker D VI; Fokker E V); Gnome Mono (DH2), Le Rhone 9C (Bristol Scout; Caudron G4; Nieuport 10c1; Morane Saulnier L; Nieuport 11 Bebe; Sopwith Pup), Le Rhone 9J (Nieuport 16, Nieuport 17; DH 5; Sopwith Strutter RFC), Clerget 9B (Nieuport 17 bis; Sopwith Camel early RFC; Sopwith Triplane), Clerget 9Z French built (Nieuport 12, Sopwith Strutter), Gnome Mono 9N (Nieuport 28C-1 USA)

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="114" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="75" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="65" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="65" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>

Late Rotaries and Early-Mid Stationaries: 5% per hour failure rate : Le Rhone 9Ja (Nieuport 17), Le Rhone 9Jb (Nieuport 23, Nieuport 24; Nieuport 26; Nieuport 27; Sopwith Camel), Clerget 9Bf (Sopwith Camel later), Bentley BR1 (Sopwith Camel RNAS), Bentley BR2 (Sopwith Snipe), Beardmore (FE2b), RAF1a (BE2c), RAF4a (BE12; RE8), Mercedes D I (Aviatik B I), Mercedes D II (Aviatik B II; Halberstadt D II), Argus AS II (Halberstadt D III), HS 8a (SE5; Spad VII), Mercedes D III early (Aviatik C I; Roland C II; Albatros D I, Albatros D II)

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="175" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="235" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="260" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="175" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="235" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="114" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="260" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="135" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="250" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>

Late Stationaries : 2.5% per hour failure rate : Benz Bz IV (DFW C V), Mercedes D III late (Hannover C LIII; Albatros D III; Albatros D V; Albatros D Va; Pfalz D IIIa; Fokker D VII), Viper (SE5a); BMW IIIa (Fokker D VII F); Renault 300 hp (Breguet 14A2), Mercedes D IVa (Gotha G IV; Rumpler C IV), Rolls Royce Falcon (Bristol F2B), Rolls Royce Eagle (DH4)

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="300" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="350" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="600" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="300" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="350" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="114" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="600" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="215" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="250" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="420" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="250" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>



Last edited by Bletchley; 08/07/22 07:06 PM.
#4605332 - 08/08/22 03:38 AM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
Looks good, B.

While testing the update to my cloud mod (shameless plug), I took the opportunity to test engine failure rates using values that were roughly equivalent to your 8% values. My values were as follows:

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="20" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="112" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="180" damageAmount_pct="8" frequency_secs="25" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="200" damageAmount_pct="11" frequency_secs="45" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="6" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="75" damageAmount_pct="55" dump="y"/>

While my testing was not nearly as systematic or as comprehensive as yours, in approximately 20-30 flight hours (well over 100 if you include flight mates as well as my own craft) I was getting failure rates that were similar to yours. Personally, my aircraft only experienced one failure, but I would estimate that at least one of my flight experienced a failure roughly every two or three missions (each mission lasting about one hour). On two or three occasions, two of my flight mates experienced a failure, and once three aircraft experienced a failure in a single mission. Overall, however, this failure rate did not seem to be excessive, although I do not recommend a failure rate any higher than 10%, which I will now start evaluating, based on your suggestions.


“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4605333 - 08/08/22 05:10 AM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Bletchley Offline
Member
Bletchley  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Yes, 10% setting is similar to the original WOFF setting and gives a very apparent failure rate in campaigns. The 2.5% setting is similar to the current WOFF setting and gives very few failures. The ratio fits with known averaged-out figures for Time Between Overhaul : average of 25 for early to mid rotaries, 50 for late rotaries and early-mid stationary engines, and 100 for late stationary engines, ie an approximate doubling in both TBO and failure rate between each. Where there is an individual failure rate for some aircraft these would need to be adjusted to fit.

#4605728 - 08/12/22 02:59 AM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
Done some testing using B's 10% failure rate values.

Over a span of ten missions, lasting a total of 9.53 hours, my aircraft experienced one failure, which is roughly what you would expect for a 10% failure rate/hour.

On the other hand, a total of 63 AI aircraft, flying a total of just over 61 hours, experienced a total of four failures. This is somewhat lower than expected, but within the realm of statistical variation. Oddly, there seemed to be less failures using the 10% setting than the 8% setting I was using earlier. Out of ten missions, only two resulted in any failures at all (one mission had three failures, two in the same aircraft).

I plan to fly another ten or so missions in the next few days with these values and will report back.


“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4605750 - 08/12/22 08:38 AM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Bletchley Offline
Member
Bletchley  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
The larger the 'sample' of missions, the closer it should get to the average rate...

I can confirm your observation that it always seems to be the Flight Leader who drops out first from among the AI pilots, so maybe the engine failure calculation is done somewhat differently for them.

#4605796 - 08/12/22 02:05 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
Yup, the more missions, the merrier, or at least the more accurate the results. wink

Are you referring to my observations about the Flight Lead? If so, I don't recall making that observation, because I haven't paid that close attention to which AI pilot seems to drop out first. It's possible, I suppose, but I haven't really noticed it. I apologize if I implied otherwise. Also keep in mind that not all engine failures result in the AI pilot dropping out of formation. For instance, excluding damage to the cooling and oil systems, two of the four engine failures do not result in the eventual total destruction of the engine. Half the time, the AI limps behind at reduced engine power (20% or 50% power loss, I think), but still remains (mostly) in formation.

I always try to remember to check the mission.log at the end of the mission, not only because it gives details about the type of failure that occurred and when, but also because it can reveal failures that I otherwise might have missed, either because the failure occurs too close to the end of the mission, or the damage is minor and doesn't prevent the AI from completing the mission.

P.S. My first mission in my second set of tests has already resulted in a failure, so the law of averages still seems to be in effect!


“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4605826 - 08/12/22 06:54 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Bletchley Offline
Member
Bletchley  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Yes, you commented "at least in my two missions, damage to the AI seems to occur on an ordinal basis. In other words, the first AI to experience a failure (if any) is either AC1 or SQ1, followed by AC2, SQ2" so I maintained a watch on any dropouts - maybe it was just a case of seeing what I was looking for (seeing a pattern that isn't there, because I was expecting to see it).

I have also been checking the mission log after each mission smile

It might be worth increasing the proportion of 'lesser' non-cumulative failures. At the moment, proportionately, most failures appear to be either 'major' system failures or cumulative failures that soon become major failures, but pilot accounts often referred to 'dud' engines as those just not performing well on the day due to some more minor problem that would be fixed on return. We would then see, in game, more aircraft 'lame ducks' dropping behind the formation instead of crashing?.

Last edited by Bletchley; 08/12/22 07:05 PM.
#4605829 - 08/12/22 07:56 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
Ah, yes. Thanks for the reminder. Encroaching senility, I'm afraid! old_simmer

Now that I recall, I made that comment after only running a few missions, but I now believe that it was probably just a coincidence. However, it may make sense to pay closer attention to that, just in case. If I may make a guess, my sense is that the sim performs a "dice roll" for failures on an ordinal basis (AC1, AC2, AC3, etc.) and if it gets a "hit" the sim stops "rolling" and waits for the next roll opportunity. As a consequence, AC1 is more likely to have a failure than AC2, AC2 more than AC3, and so on, but at least in theory, a failure can occur to any aircraft in the flight. Another question is whether the sim performs this dice roll for the whole flight, or one aircraft at a time.

I think your idea of possibly increasing the likelihood of non-cumulative "lesser" failures is a good one. Right now, there is roughly a 50-50 chance that your engine failure will be a catastrophic and possibly fatal failure. In real life, while such catastrophes certainly did occur, the vast majority of engine failures were relatively minor. I know I don't like it when my aircraft blows up!

I figured you were checking the mission.log. I mainly was saying it to remind myself to do it. Senility again!


“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4605836 - 08/12/22 09:01 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 382
Becker01 Offline
Member
Becker01  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 382
Hey guys,

at first sorry for being so quiet. But since later spring I have not enough time for the forum. I read it (more or less quickly) but more ist not possible. I'm happy, when I can fly WOFF-Recon Wars at the weekend a little bit in these times.

This very interesting mod-theme has a development. Compliment!!
I'm sure you will find a solution at the end, maybe two: with Java (multimod) and an other.

Greetings, nice weekend and don't give up!

Becker01

#4605889 - 08/13/22 11:58 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
No problems, Becker. Thanks for the support.

We all seem to be chasing our tails these days, what with strange viruses and wars in the middle of Europe going on.

Stay safe and take care.


“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4605912 - 08/14/22 06:34 AM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Bletchley Offline
Member
Bletchley  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
here is a version of the 3 Engine failure sets that increases the chance of minor failure and decreases the chance of major failure (overall chance of failure remains the same):

Early-Mid Rotaries : 10% per hour failure rate : Oberursel U.0 (Fokker E I; Pfalz A I), Oberursel U II (Fokker D II; Fokker E II; Fokker E III; Pfalz E III), Oberursel UR II (Fokker Dr I; Fokker D VI; Fokker E V); Gnome Mono (DH2), Le Rhone 9C (Bristol Scout; Caudron G4; Nieuport 10c1; Morane Saulnier L; Nieuport 11 Bebe; Sopwith Pup), Le Rhone 9J (Nieuport 16, Nieuport 17; DH 5; Sopwith Strutter RFC), Clerget 9B (Nieuport 17 bis; Sopwith Camel early RFC; Sopwith Triplane), Clerget 9Z French built (Nieuport 12, Sopwith Strutter), Gnome Mono 9N (Nieuport 28C-1 USA)

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="25" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="320" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="300" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="25" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="320" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="114" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="300" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="75" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="130" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="60" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="130" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>

Late Rotaries and Early-Mid Stationaries: 5% per hour failure rate : Le Rhone 9Ja (Nieuport 17), Le Rhone 9Jb (Nieuport 23, Nieuport 24; Nieuport 26; Nieuport 27; Sopwith Camel), Clerget 9Bf (Sopwith Camel later), Bentley BR1 (Sopwith Camel RNAS), Bentley BR2 (Sopwith Snipe), Beardmore (FE2b), RAF1a (BE2c), RAF4a (BE12; RE8), Mercedes D I (Aviatik B I), Mercedes D II (Aviatik B II; Halberstadt D II), Argus AS II (Halberstadt D III), HS 8a (SE5; Spad VII), Mercedes D III early (Aviatik C I; Roland C II; Albatros D I, Albatros D II)

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="60" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="235" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="400" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="60" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="235" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="114" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="400" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="130" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="240" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="240" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>

Late Stationaries : 2.5% per hour failure rate : Benz Bz IV (DFW C V), Mercedes D III late (Hannover C LIII; Albatros D III; Albatros D V; Albatros D Va; Pfalz D IIIa; Fokker D VII), Viper (SE5a); BMW IIIa (Fokker D VII F); Renault 300 hp (Breguet 14A2), Mercedes D IVa (Gotha G IV; Rumpler C IV), Rolls Royce Falcon (Bristol F2B), Rolls Royce Eagle (DH4)

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="1000" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="800" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="1000" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="114" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="800" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="200" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="200" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>

#4605977 - 08/14/22 09:43 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
Looks good, B.

I'd like to finish my second set of tests using your previous early war rotary settings, then I will try these revised early war settings, this time for inline engines.


“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4606137 - 08/16/22 08:43 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
I finished my second set of tests using B's previous settings for a 10% failure rate for early-war, rotary engines.

In 10.4 hours of flight time for my pilot, I experienced one failure to the oil reservoir, but was able to successfully land.

In total, out of twelve sorties, involving a total of 91 flights, there was a total of 5 failures, or roughly one failure every two missions.

I'll next try with B's revised 10% failure settings for early rotaries.

Last edited by BuckeyeBob; 08/16/22 08:44 PM.

“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4606360 - 08/19/22 09:32 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
Hello, Bletchley. I have had a chance to test out your new settings. This is what I have found, so far, in a limited sample size of ten hours of flight time for my aircraft. Based on my testing, you may need to bump up the minor failure rate a bit. Instead of lowering the "mean time to failure" number, you may want to add an additional failure setting, say, to represent the failure of a single cylinder. During testing, my pilot experienced no failures, and the AI, consisting of 42 flights over roughly that same period of time, only had two failures.

I have also continued to notice that among the AI, .SQ1 is virtually always the first (and usually the only) aircraft to experience a failure in a single mission. In light of this, you may wish to reconsider making individual settings for all of the AI aircraft. Perhaps a setting for only the .Sqd (player-controlled) aircraft is all that is necessary?

Edit: Looking more closely at my latest mission.log with an engine failure, I noticed that all of the AI in both A and B flight were designated .SQ1. However, they had different hex ID values, indicating they were different aircraft, so the above statement about the same aircraft always getting damaged is most likely incorrect.

Last edited by BuckeyeBob; 08/20/22 05:28 AM. Reason: added important information

“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4606378 - 08/20/22 05:42 AM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Bletchley Offline
Member
Bletchley  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Hello BuckeyeBob, thank you for testing these failure rates smile

"During testing, my pilot experienced no failures"

Were you using the 5% rate? If so, I am not surprised, as the average failure rate over 10 hours is less than 1 (but, due to the small sample size, I wouldn't have been surprised if you had had two or three failures either). Also, the changes to the most recent set of failure rates should have made no difference to the chance of failure - they should just change the likely outcome of that failure (i.e. more chance of non-fatal failure, so fewer AI pilots falling out of the sky, and more lagging behind the formation instead).

"the AI, consisting of 42 flights over roughly that same period of time, only had two failures" I guess that is 42 hrs of flight (roughly)? A 5% rate is 1/20 per hour, so 42 hrs of flight should produce an average of 2 failures (rounded down)..which is (coincidentally) exactly what you had!

"Instead of lowering the "mean time to failure" number, you may want to add an additional failure setting, say, to represent the failure of a single cylinder" I am not sue how to do this...are you? Something like :

<FailureRule SystemID="single cylinder" average_hrs="240" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/> ? I have a feeling that wouldn't work, as the game probably doesn't know what to do with the "single cylinder" instruction and would either ignore it or crash...

I guess adding the failure rules to only the .Sqd aircraft would simplify things. I am guessing that if this was done the AI, with no individual failure rules of their own, would continue to use the Simulation file? So we would still have to switch this modified file in and out using JSGME for the AI. Or would we just ignore the AI, letting them follow the generic (unmodified) failure rules now in the Simulation file and just apply the modified failure rules to the player? I guess that would also work, although there would then be a mis-match between the player's experience and their perceived experience of the AI on the higher failure settings ("Why do I get all the engine failures, but never the AI pilots?"). It would be tempting to do it that way, though, as it would cut down on a lot of work and would be a once-only modification (and would therefore avoid having to switch modified Simulation files in and out all the time....).

Thanks for testing and maintaining an interest in this smile

B.

Last edited by Bletchley; 08/20/22 06:11 AM. Reason: We cross posted, so I deleted my answer to your observation on SQ1 aircraft
#4606415 - 08/20/22 05:07 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
Glad to be of help, B.

My results were actually based on your suggested 10% failure rate, which is why I suggested that you may want to modify the settings a bit. However, these settings may work great for a 5% failure rate, as you indicated!

Quote
"Instead of lowering the "mean time to failure" number, you may want to add an additional failure setting, say, to represent the failure of a single cylinder" I am not sue how to do this...are you? Something like :

<FailureRule SystemID="single cylinder" average_hrs="240" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/> ? I have a feeling that wouldn't work, as the game probably doesn't know what to do with the "single cylinder" instruction and would either ignore it or crash...

No, more like something like this:

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="25" damageAmount_pct="12" dump="y"/>

The damageAmount_pct="12" figure, as best as I can determine, indicates the percentage of engine damage (reduced hit points and power) that occurs for a failure. For a 9 cylinder rotary, damage to one cylinder would result in approximately 11% decreased performance, correct?

Regarding only editing the .sqd file settings, I think you can disregard what I said about only editing that file, although it would make things more simple. Reading the mission.log more closely indicates to me that other aircraft in your flight can suffer damage, although damage to more than one aircraft in a flight is relatively rare, as it should be.

Cheers!


“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4606416 - 08/20/22 05:14 PM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
BuckeyeBob Offline
Member
BuckeyeBob  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,523
Ohio, USA
I am now testing a modification of your suggested 10% failure rate, using these numbers:

<Failure weight="1.0">
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="25" damageAmount_pct="12" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="30" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="275" damageAmount_pct="62" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="112" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="250" damageAmount_pct="8" frequency_secs="30" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="75" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="45" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="125" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
</Failure>

So far, in four completed missions lasting approximately one hour each, there were no failures in three missions, and two minor failures to the AI in the fourth mission. Both AI aircraft were able to fully complete the mission, indicating that the damage only reduced their engine performance by a small amount, which is what I am aiming for. You can see I also adjusted the chances for a major failure a bit to see if I get different results with these figures.


“With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable.”
#4606444 - 08/21/22 06:04 AM Re: Possible Engine Mod [Re: Bletchley]  
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Bletchley Offline
Member
Bletchley  Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 301
Ah! I see now, thank you smile

That looks good!

Hugh

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Polovski 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0