homepage

Possible Engine Mod

Posted By: Bletchley

Possible Engine Mod - 07/06/22 09:28 AM

This is a follow-up to the 'Dud Engines' thread in the general section.

It appears to be the case that most aircraft engine failures in WOFF are determined by the generic simulation.xml set of instructions (thank you, Von S, for pointing me in that direction), but some specific aircraft have their own identical (but with different values) set of instructions that override this. If this is the case It should be possible, but would be a lot of work for one person, to give every aircraft in WOFF its own set of engine failure instructions (rather than just a select few) rather than having to rely, as now, on the generic set in the simulation.xml file. It would not be quite so bad, as it is the engine that fails rather than the aircraft, and many aircraft use the same engine and would therefore share the same instructions.

Another thought - if the figure for 'hours' in these instructions represent the mean time for failure within the sim, and a figure of '60' for example represents a 1/60 chance of failure in a 1 hour flight (?) then it might be possible to use the Mean Time Before Overhaul found in most aircraft engine manuals of the period to stand in for a Mean Time Before Failure number that could be used as a starting point for the numbers used by the sim (?). Some of the data for this is in TheAerodrome forum thread that I linked to in the 'Dud Engines' thread, but some would have to be estimated from anecdotal evidence, and the outcomes would have to be tested to see how this would work in sim.

Does anyone think that this might work? If several people worked together it might cut down on the time and effort to find and add this data to the aircraft files, and test the results...
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/06/22 06:35 PM

No, I don't think that would work - I can't see anything that I could change to make this happen. Scratch that idea smile
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/06/22 06:45 PM

Not a bad idea but sounds like a lot of work. I don't think every aircraft type needs its own individual engine failure model, however, as the failure rules in the simulation.xml file does a pretty good job on its own and can even be tweaked to suit individual preferences.

I guess the first step would be to identify all the aircraft types in WOFF with customized engine failure rates (easy) and then compare that with a list of "unreliable" engine types used in the war to see if any aircraft using the default failure rules deserve custom failure rules. I bet you won't find many in WOFF, but if you do, they should be easy to fix.

OTOH, if you wanted to go hog wild, you could fashion individual failure rules based on other factors, such as squadron rating, with "poor" squadrons having higher failure rates than "good" or "elite" squadrons, etc. Now that might be a project! wink
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/06/22 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Bletchley
No, I don't think that would work - I can't see anything that I could change to make this happen. Scratch that idea smile

I don't think it would be too difficult, because I think all you need to do is edit the "failure" section in an individual aircraft's .xdp file. However, copying that to each aircraft folder might be tedious.
Posted By: Becker01

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/06/22 08:34 PM

Hallo @Bletchley,

"... to give every aircraft in WOFF its own set of engine failure instructions ..."
That could be a very good mod!
But maybe it is not necessary to do it for every aircraft. It is enough in my opinion to do it for every different engine (f.e. 5 different aircrafts with the same engine need only once the same new engine failure instructions).
So in my eyes it is senseful, like a prework, to check, how many different engines do we have in WOFF and which historical failure-data from these engines are available. Then you have a better overview about the real work and you can make your decision easier.

If it is too much work, maybe it is easier to change the simulation.xml for "similar engines /engine-failures" in different groups and in consequence in different mods. So you can activate the the mod1 "engine failure group 1" (for all corresponding aeroplanes) or activate mod 2 "engine failure group 2" (for all corresponding aeroplanes) and so on. On this way you can take into account the much/big different features of real different engines in different groups, but not the little differences between engine-type A1a and type A1b.

So you activate the "similar engines/engine-failures-group"-mod, which contains the aeroplane you fly at the moment.


Only a thought!


Greetings!
Posted By: VonS

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/06/22 09:17 PM

Glad that my suggestions regarding the simulation.xml file were helpful Bletchley -- I am, overall, getting good results with those values, from WoFF UE/PE, in BH2. Also a thumbs up to the other posters in this thread -- especially to Becker's idea (that might be a sensible middle ground, to tweak as per engine type, rather than to comb over every file for every aircraft type in WoFF).

In conjunction with changes to the simulation.xml file, it should be sufficient for good, broad representation of historical engine failure/unreliability rates -- for example, the early Hisso 200 hp, the 220 hp Hisso, etc., also early inline-six Mercedes engines vs. later (au) variants, and of course various rotary types, such as the Oberursels, Clergets, LeRhones, Siemens-Halske, and so on.

I hope, time-permitting, to test some more "hardcore" engine failure nos. than present even in stock WoFF UE/PE (for the simulation.xml file), in the near future - and will post under the casual campaigns thread if I notice any results worth reporting.

Cheers all,
Von S smile2
Posted By: Polovski

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/07/22 10:50 AM

As I say this is basically already in there for the more obvious less reliable engines, such as the 200 Hisso etc in early SE5 and SE5a, SPADS, and the Fokker Eindecker IV for example with the doubled up Oberursel EIII 14 clyinder

Whether it really needs subtle differences for many of the other engines not sure it's worth it?

Note at some point, and I cannot remember quite when, WM updated the random number calculator code, so numbers from UE and B&HII may not produce the same effect.

Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/07/22 02:30 PM

Hi Polovski, thank you, yes it would probably be a lot of work for only marginal gain to add individualised engine failure rules to every aircraft in WOFF (in many cases, as you say, with little noticeable difference), particularly as it would need a fair bit of testing to make sure it works without breaking anything else.

Hi Buckeye Bob, Becker01, Von S - I quite like the alternative proposed by Becker01 and by Von S, producing a different simulation.xml for a number of broad categories based on a simple hierarchy of reliability. I guess this would need to be (at least initially) a JSGME based mod so that, as Becker01 says, they can be swapped in and out as players change from one aircraft to another. That would be much easier to do, less likely to break anything else (as it is just tweaking the numbers in an existing file) and easier to test and re-tweak, but would end up being more fiddly for the player. We would just need to get our heads together and come up with a reliability hierarchy of engines, based on whatever historical evidence that we can find, and divide that hierarchy up into broadly similar groups that can then be matched against the aircraft in WOFF to create groups of aircraft that can then be allocated to a particular tweaked simulation.xml file. After testing, the numbers could be tweaked further until we find a reasonable balance between the historical evidence and playability. If that worked, at a later stage (and if someone had the time and inclination) then as Buckeye Bob suggests, the relevant engine failure lines from those tweaked simulation.xml files could be added to those individual aircraft files that don't already have them to create a follow up mod that would dispense with all the JSGME swapping in and out
Posted By: orbyxP

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/07/22 06:26 PM

Simulation.xml contains a lot of other configurations (eg workshop settings, ai behavior, etc) that vary from one player to another. I suggest trying to get in touch with JJJ to add it to his multimod which only changes the numbers in existing files without completely replacing them like jsgme would do.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/07/22 07:28 PM

OK, thanks orbyxP, that is useful to know.
Posted By: VonS

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/07/22 10:07 PM

I would also second Orbyx's recommendation to contact JJJ - such a fine-tuned (and excellent) engine mod would work best as a set of toggles included in JJJ's fine program "MultiMod" - for example, there could be three or four different settings implemented, and that change the relevant failure-rates section of the simulation.xml file, without altering anything else -- something as follows, perhaps:

option 1 - poor reliability - early rotaries, early Hisso and Mercedes engines (such as for Eindeckers, the early Albies and the Se5 and 200 hp Spad 13)

option 2 - usually acceptable reliability - mid-war rotaries and somewhat more reliable types (such as for Tripehounds, Dr.1s, the Hisso-powered Se5a, the Alb. D.III series, and so on)

option 3 - fairly good reliability - later-war types and generally more sound engines (such as for the Viper Se5a, 235hp Spad 13, the Alb. D.V/Va series, etc.)

option 4 - worst reliability - run-down squadrons, home-defence flights, obsolete types still in use, depending on player's own aircraft and time of war, etc. (and suffering from wear and tear)

Categories above are crude but workable suggestions -- it might be possible also to organize such options along engine types and time of war, such as --- early rotaries, mid-war rotaries, late-war rotaries, early inlines, mid-war inlines, late-war inlines, etc. (a min. of six options to toggle in that case) -- although one should keep in mind always the law of diminishing returns -- i.e., might not be worth it to fine-tune such options excessively, since much is randomized via the AI anyway in WoFF -- thus my initial (cruder) suggestions for three or four options above.

Hopefully JJJ will see these posts and pitch in with his own thoughts. Looking forward to further developments in this area gents'.

Cheers all,
Von S smile2
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/08/22 05:45 AM

Thanks Von S, here is my first stab at that (mostly off the top off my head, and I haven't checked to see if the engine/aircraft type exactly matches that used in WOFF):

Type 1 : Generally very problematic : Oberursel U.III (Fokker D III; Fokker E IV), Clerget 9Z made under license in UK (Sopwith Strutter RNAS), HS 8b geared (SE5a; Spad XIII)

Type 2 : Bit iffy, many of the early rotaries : 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)

Type 3 : Generally OK, early-mid rotaries with cast iron pistons : 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)

Type 4 : Improved rotaries with aluminium alloy pistons : 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)

Type 5 : Mostly early-mid war stationary : 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)

Type 6 : Mostly later war stationaries : 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)

Any comments from anyone? Quite happy to split or merge categories, or swap engines around from one to another. Some aircraft will be in more than one category, as they had several engines (Sopwith Camel springs to mind there!) although I have tried to go for the main production engine rather than variants.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/08/22 07:21 AM

I think we already have two baselines - the early engine failure rules (Type 2?) and the current engine failure rules (Type 6?). Type 1 is probably covered by the engine failure rules already placed in some aircraft files. Type 3 to 5 would be on a gradient between Type 2 and 6. When we have an initial set of engine failure rules between 2 and 6 we could then test them by moving them in and out of the simulation file, and tweak as appropriate.

That is just one more, I think, than you suggested Von S., but you might want to merge a couple of those categories. It could also be left to the player to upgrade or downgrade reliability for brief periods (i.e for wear and tear, or because an engine improved as early snags were ironed out)
Posted By: VonS

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/08/22 08:02 AM

Thank you for those categories Bletchley -- I hope to do some testing over the next week or two and will comment regarding results. I will initially create six separate failure entries as per your six types listed, but will then merge one or two -- to streamline testing - and will comment if I notice any interesting differences between the different simulation.xml files. My assumption is that stock failure rates in BH&H2, also in UE/PE WoFF, are somewhere around types 4, 5 or 6 - with UE/PE closer to type 4, and BH&H2 closer to six. Types 1, 2 and 3 might not currently be represented in-sim, with the exception, as you say, of individual aircraft xdp files that may cover some of the extreme unreliability of type 1. I will post here again once I create some failure sets since I have to be careful not to plug in nos. that might crash WoFF during the runtime startup or throw up errors on the screen.

Cheers all,
Von S smile2
Posted By: Becker01

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/08/22 08:55 AM

WOW @Bletchley,

type 1 ... 6, exactly that was my tought with "groups".

More later!

Greetings
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/08/22 11:53 AM

That's great Von S and Becker01, I look forward to that, and any more comments or suggestions. I am off work with Covid, so I have an unusually large amount of time at the moment to devote to playing and tweaking WOFF - so if I can be of any help with testing just let me know. I think testing and tweaking is likely to be the most time consuming part of this.
Posted By: Becker01

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/08/22 05:00 PM

Hallo @Bletchley,

now more ... .
At first let me say, that I haven't any knowledge about the engines and their failures. So I can't say anything about this.

I think more about the most senseful mod-process. @OrbX of course is right with the simulatipn.xml-argument and the combination with the MultiMod is a good idea.
On the other side I'm sure, you will develop and test the mod very often during the first phases. And for that time it's better IMHO, that you have all in your hand, independing from other mods. During these weeks you can develop the mod for JSGME (f.e. 6 groups = 6 sub-mods) with your simulation.xml-file in every group/sub-mod. Additionally you can write a short briefing for the users -or test-pilots maybe- the way to copy their own simulation.xml-file in the sub-mods (6x) and to copy the different engine-changes in these user-specific simulation.xml-files (6x). Yes, that's a little bit work for the users when they prepare your mod the first time, but the best way during this phase in my eyes (or they work with your simulation.xml-file simply! Then they must only activate the group/sub-mod, they want to have).
In the next phase after all you will say "Okay, that's it! This is the final version. I have no more ideas, no new improvements and all data are in." This final version is ready for combination with an other mod.

Only an idea. What do you think?

Greetings!
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/08/22 05:39 PM

Thanks Becker01. I have been thinking about this, and although we can use the simulation.xml file for creating and testing the different categories there would be a problem with making the final mod in this way as a JSGME mod (quite apart from the effect that this would have on any other mods that make use of the simulation.xml file). Changing the numbers in the simulation.xml file will effect not only YOUR aircraft, and the aircraft in your flight, but ALL aircraft in the WOFF environment. So, you could be flying an aircraft with a most unreliable engine, but the engine failure rate of every other aircraft in the WOFF world would suddenly become the same. Aircraft with Mercedes D III or Rolls Royce engines would be aborting their missions and making emergency landings all around you at the same rate as your aircraft with the dodgy rotary. I am not sure that even JJJ's multimod would solve this problem (?). In the end, I think, the solution may have to be that every aircraft has its own engine failure rules for this to work. This would be a lot of work, but with just 4 or 5 categories these rules, once created and tested (the most time consuming part), could then be copied and pasted into the appropriate aircraft files (all those that don't already have their own rules). This would also solve the problem, I hope, of the mod interfering with other mods, as by doing it this way no lasting changes would have to be made to the simulation.xml file. When completed, the simulation.xml file would remain unchanged.
Posted By: Becker01

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/08/22 07:03 PM

Hmm, okay: if the changing of the numbers in the simulation-file effects also other aeroplanes in the environment (and maybe other mods), then of course the second way via simulation-file is difficult ... .
The third way via MultiMod? I don't know, @JJJ will know it.
If not, then I see only the step back to way 1: the detailed, safe but long work to change it for every aircraft. In this case let me remember on the prework, I have mentioned above. The work-priority would be, to feel no selfmade-pressure. It takes as long as it takes.

Maybe we'll get a little bit more feedback, which can help.

Greetings
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/09/22 04:59 AM

On the other hand, do you really notice what happens to the AI aircraft that are not part of your flight? When you are flying your attention is focussed on your own aircraft and those immediately around you. If AI squads several miles away are having a greater or lesser occurrence of engine failures you are not really going to notice (especially as the process is randomised for each individual mission). Although a mod that changes the aircraft files would be better, a mod that changes just the simulation.xml file would be almost as good in practice and would avoid a mountain of work. Also, in the process of developing and updating the game the developers might make changes to the aircraft files or simulation.xml file, and if that happened the engine failure rules (unless adopted by the developers) would have to be re-added each time. It would be easier to do that for one file (the simulation.xml file) than all the aircraft files...
Posted By: JJJ65

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/09/22 06:54 AM

Hello, Sirs, good idea. I am on my way from vacation right now, so, pls, let me return to this thread on Monday. Yes, I can implement any changes to simulation.xml or particular aircraft *.xdp files via MultiMod. I will just need these new parts of script to replace. The best form of this "junks" we can discuss on Monday.
Posted By: VonS

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/09/22 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Bletchley
... If AI squads several miles away are having a greater or lesser occurrence of engine failures you are not really going to notice (especially as the process is randomised for each individual mission). ... Also, in the process of developing and updating the game the developers might make changes to the aircraft files or simulation.xml file, and if that happened the engine failure rules (unless adopted by the developers) would have to be re-added each time. It would be easier to do that for one file (the simulation.xml file) than all the aircraft files...


Good points indeed -- I have in the meantime already set up six engine failure "gradations" (as per your previous posts Bletchley) and will do some testing soon in QC mode against, and within, various types -- to see if there are any major differences. Will also have a quick look at some of the individual aircraft xdp files to compare with entries in the simulation.xml file. In the worst case scenario, if it proves unworkable to tweak all xdp files across WoFF, we can all partially rejoice in knowing that when any given engine failure set is loaded via the simulation.xml file -- it is still historically plausible in the sense that no one should be going up in a Fokker Eindecker, for example, against a Spad 13, so there is still some consistency that way too -- since aircraft of (comparably) the same era are usually going up one against the other in WoFF anyway.

Thinking out loud here -- the main "culprits" that probably require individual xdp failure rates are the Hisso-Se5 (and 5a) and the Spad 13 stock (220 hp), perhaps also an "enhanced" xdp file failure rate for an early Spad 13 (200 hp), for those who use the 200hp-Spad13-FM mod included in my FM pack for WoFF -- in case it is not practical to comb over all xdp files.

Will post again in about a week after testing.

Cheers all,
Von S smile2
Posted By: JJJ65

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/09/22 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by VonS
Originally Posted by Bletchley
... If AI squads several miles away are having a greater or lesser occurrence of engine failures you are not really going to notice (especially as the process is randomised for each individual mission). ... Also, in the process of developing and updating the game the developers might make changes to the aircraft files or simulation.xml file, and if that happened the engine failure rules (unless adopted by the developers) would have to be re-added each time. It would be easier to do that for one file (the simulation.xml file) than all the aircraft files...


Good points indeed -- I have in the meantime already set up six engine failure "gradations" (as per your previous posts Bletchley) and will do some testing soon in QC mode against, and within, various types -- to see if there are any major differences. Will also have a quick look at some of the individual aircraft xdp files to compare with entries in the simulation.xml file. In the worst case scenario, if it proves unworkable to tweak all xdp files across WoFF, we can all partially rejoice in knowing that when any given engine failure set is loaded via the simulation.xml file -- it is still historically plausible in the sense that no one should be going up in a Fokker Eindecker, for example, against a Spad 13, so there is still some consistency that way too -- since aircraft of (comparably) the same era are usually going up one against the other in WoFF anyway.

Thinking out loud here -- the main "culprits" that probably require individual xdp failure rates are the Hisso-Se5 (and 5a) and the Spad 13 stock (220 hp), perhaps also an "enhanced" xdp file failure rate for an early Spad 13 (200 hp), for those who use the 200hp-Spad13-FM mod included in my FM pack for WoFF -- in case it is not practical to comb over all xdp files.

Will post again in about a week after testing.

Cheers all,
Von S smile2


Yes, you are right, but with help of MultiMod, the reapplying of mod after any OBD update can be matter of seconds.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/09/22 07:35 PM

A few random thoughts/observations:

--Using JJJ's Multimod is definitely the way to go, although you could use JSGME to load alternative engine failure mods. I imagine we would have to create at least two or three versions of a JSGME mod to reflect different time periods and updates/improvements to different engine series such as early vs. late Hisso's etc. The Multimod would allow you to do this dynamically, or "on the fly" as it were, so it is undoubtably the better option.

--My understanding is the main simulation.xml file serves as a "base" model for engine failure rules that applies to ALL planes, including player and AI. Therefore, my recommendation would be to set it to reflect an "average" failure rate which would be somewhere between the tier one and tier six engine types as discussed by Bletchley. We could then use Individual aircraft .xdp files to create more "specialized" or unique engine failure rules for individual engine types, as is currently done for a few aircraft already in the game. Again, my understanding is that the specialized failure rates for some of the aircraft currently in the game reflect aircraft with notably worse engine reliability issues than average. Therefore, with this approach, we might have to consider modifying some aircraft .xdp files to reflect aircraft with better than average engine reliability so they don't get stuck with the "base" failure rate contained in the main simulation.xml file. We might also need to have two or three versions of the simulation.xml file to reflect overall improvement in engine reliability as the war progresses, although this is only a possible option.

--In the alternative, we could use a simulation.xml file that establishes a fairly low rate of engine failures (similar to Bletchley's tier five or six engines) and then use individual aircraft .xdp files to only model aircraft with higher failure rates. This would be similar to how the game currently works, except with more planes with specialized rules. Again, these individual .xdp files might have to be adjusted over time for some aircraft in order to reflect that some aircraft received improved engines as the war progressed and various engine issues in real life were resolved.

For your consideration....
Posted By: orbyxP

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/10/22 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by VonS
in case it is not practical to comb over all xdp files.


My suggestion is to use only the xdp files and leave the simulation.xml. You can use only the xdp files that end in "sqd" (which is the player's aircraft). There are about 78. Then if JJJ can program a "search" to find that same line in each of the other xdp files, the final value can be replaced.

For example (I don't know what value in the xdp you're going to change),

If there is such a string in the xdp as "Engine Failure hours=150", then you change it to "Engine Failure hours=100" in xdp file inside the "sqd" folder only. Then apply JJJ's program, it will search for the xdp files in each of the other aircraft folders "AC1, AC2, AC3, AC4, AC5, QC1, SQ1, SQ2, SQ3, SQ4, and SQ5" and copy only that change into the xdp file.

Effectively, you can only modify 78 files, and auto-apply the same settings to ~7,000 files.

So, when JJJ's mod is released, it will already have the settings to change each xdp file with a click of a button.... I think.

Going the route of a generic simulation.xml would be the last option in my opinion.


Posted By: VonS

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/10/22 04:20 AM

Had a bit of free time during the weekend and, after more (initial stage) crude testing -- I agree with BB and Orbyx that best, for those interested in tweaking engine failure rates to the fullest in WoFF -- is to tinker with the relevant <failure> entries in the xdp files for aircraft. In terms of the general simulation.xml file, stock nos. that are already there (for BH&H2) - or the stock ones from UE/PE WoFF -- that I tend to use - should be good enough as a generic baseline. Have done some testing so far with six different nos. sets in the simulation.xml file, with one set causing crashes, and leaving another couple of files where I didn't spot anything of significance. Obviously it is best to test such changes extensively in campaign mode -- although I will leave the sets of entries further below, which I think are somewhat successful, and for those who wish to tinker further with them.

JJJ's MultiMod is definitely the way to go for such changes, and should allow for easy tweaking of individual xdp failure rate entries. I have done a quick search in one of my find-and-replace programs for the <failure> entry in xdp files, and I have found that only the following aircraft contain failure entries in their xdp files (do however double-check since I might have missed an entry or two):

Fokk D.3
Fokk E.4
Gotha G.4
Pfalz D.3a
Se5 (Hisso)
Se5a (Hisso)
N.28
Spad 7
Zeppelin

A quick look, for example, at the failure entry nos. in the Pfalz xdp file, indicates that they are about 50% reduced from stock failure nos. in the simulation.xml file in BH&H2, etc. Considering that xdp failure entries most likely override stock failure nos. in the simulation file, those running stock failure nos. (in the simulation.xml file) from UE/PE WoFF in BH2 might wish also to tweak, as relevant, entries in the xdp files -- i.e., to reduce, for example, the Pfalz failure nos. to 50% of stock failure nos. from the UE/PE era, and so on. Theoretically, it should also be possible to include failure nos. in other xdp files, for other aircraft too, where such entries are missing -- again, depends on how much time/energy one wants to invest in such a project. Currently I am busy with work and other things but might consider revisiting this interesting topic in the near future. (At any rate it's a project that will work best if several WoFFers tweak and test such additions in campaign mode, in BH&H2 -- time-permitting -- since QC mode probably won't show the full spectrum of results.)

By the way, here are the four sets of failure entry nos. for the simulation.xml file that didn't cause any crashes and that appear to be worthwhile to explore further (initially I started with six entries, one seemed largely redundant; one created errors and crashes in BH2):

Set 1 - attempt to create horrible failure rates (did not experience any failures in QC mode; perhaps these numbers will work best in campaign mode)

<Failure weight="1.0" masterdisable="n">
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="15" damageAmount_pct="51" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="45" damageAmount_pct="90" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="75" damageAmount_pct="25" frequency_secs="91" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="115" damageAmount_pct="29" frequency_secs="15" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="15" damageAmount_pct="51" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="45" damageAmount_pct="90" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="75" damageAmount_pct="25" frequency_secs="94" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="115" damageAmount_pct="29" frequency_secs="15" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="25" damageAmount_pct="24" frequency_secs="22" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="20" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="75" damageAmount_pct="25" frequency_secs="40" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="20" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
</Failure>

Set 2 - experienced engine failure twice in flight, and also needed several attempts to restart engine at field (tested in QC mode); opponent was Bristol Scout that also experienced engine failure but managed to restart engine in dogfight, etc.

<Failure weight="1.0" masterdisable="n">
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="40" damageAmount_pct="36" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="70" damageAmount_pct="75" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="106" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="14" frequency_secs="30" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="40" damageAmount_pct="36" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="70" damageAmount_pct="75" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="109" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="14" frequency_secs="30" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="27" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="45" damageAmount_pct="55" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="45" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="45" damageAmount_pct="55" dump="y"/>
</Failure>

Set 3 - stock UE/PE failure nos. (they work well enough and sometimes give engine failure in campaign mode (didn't experience any failures this time around in QC testing)

<Failure weight="1.0" masterdisable="n">
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="60" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="90" 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="160" 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="90" 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="160" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="70" 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"/>
</Failure>

Set 4 - attempt to create slightly more "robust" nos. than in stock UE/PE (experienced engine failure once in flight; didn't have opportunity to test engine restart on field, since I crashed while attempting to evade a Bristol Scout -- the Fokk E.II was used in all tests, against a Bristol)

<Failure weight="1.0" masterdisable="n">
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="70" damageAmount_pct="26" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="130" damageAmount_pct="3" frequency_secs="116" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="170" damageAmount_pct="6" frequency_secs="40" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="70" damageAmount_pct="26" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="130" damageAmount_pct="3" frequency_secs="119" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="170" damageAmount_pct="6" frequency_secs="40" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="2" frequency_secs="37" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="75" damageAmount_pct="40" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="130" damageAmount_pct="3" frequency_secs="55" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="75" damageAmount_pct="40" dump="y"/>
</Failure>

Cheers all and looking forward to further developments and posts on this topic,
Von S smile2
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/10/22 04:57 AM

Thanks again for all the valuable testing, vonS. Where do you find the time? wink

For initial testing purposes, I think we only need to focus on the "average_hrs" variable. The "damageAmount" and "frequency_secs" variables only effect the extent and rate of damage once a failure occurs, I believe.

How did your testing values compare to the "base" values in the simulation.xml file? Perhaps that might explain why some caused the game to crash and others didn't? We also aren't 100% positive that the <failure> values replace the values in the simulation.xml file. Perhaps they supplement them in some way instead? There also may be some kind of internal file check that terminates the program if "extreme" values are detected???
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/10/22 06:28 AM

That's a great start VonS, and I agree with BuckeyeBob that the important figures (in terms of the chance of 'something' going wrong with the engine) are the average_hours figure. If my initial understanding of this are correct, this figure is the mean time between failure (MTBF) : so if this is set at '100' you can expect, on average, one failure every 100 hours which in a 1 hour flight would be 1/100 or 1% chance of failure. If you do this calculation for all 8 lines of instruction (ignoring the engine_two lines that would only apply to multi-engine aircraft such as the Caudron or Gotha) and add them together you should get a figure that provides you with a guide to the chance that 'something' will happen to your engine.

In your first set this is an incredibly high 26% (rounded down) of something happening to your engine. Even if this is a relatively minor 'something' it will in most cases be enough to abort your mission.
The second set comes in at !3%
The UE/PE set is 9% (rounded down)
The 4th set is 8% (rounded down)

I don't think I would describe any of those figures as robust! I have been using the UE/PE set in Campaign now for the last 10 missions, and although I have not had a failure I have been keeping a record of the number of times that 'A' and 'B' flight members and any covering flight have had to drop out of formation, and it seems to be roughly consistent with that 9% figure so far (difficult to tell for sure with such a small sample of missions).

By comparison, the current figure for the Fokker E. IV is 6% rounded up (i.e slightly more reliable then your set 4)

Historically, the worst MTBO (Mean Time Before Overhaul) that I could find for an early rotary was 15 hours, or a 7% (rounded up) chance of failure if we can equate MTBO with MTBF. Most rotaries had an MTBO 0f 30 (mid, 3% rounded down) to 50 (late, 2%), whilst stationary ones went from 60-100 (2% rounded up to 1%). Needless to say, compared to a modern aircraft piston engine with 1500 to 2500 hours MTBO this is a very low MTBO (or very high chance of failure,).

Another interesting point to bear in mind is that the rotary engines will not suffer from coolant loss, as they are air cooled. If you look at the 'special' failure rules for the Fokker E. IV in the aircraft files you will see that the coolant figures have been removed. So we may have to keep the air-cooled and water cooled engines in different categories.

Thanks to everyone who has taken an interest in this, and added their thoughts and ideas. I think it is definitely going somewhere now smile

B.
Posted By: orbyxP

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/10/22 10:50 AM

Interesting discussion.

I'd like to suggest at this point, the skeleton of the mod(s) is/are complete.

If you will be adding for each aircraft, then I would now turn to the simulation.xml file to "fix" those numbers so as not to skew the ones in the xdp files, if that makes sense. If you zero out the simulation.xml numbers, then leave the chance only to the ones in the xdp file to determine the randomness chance. Since you already have a rough idea on what the numbers represent, I don't think it's necessary to test the numbers in campaign. Only test if they cause a crash or not after you eliminate the simulation.xml file "interference". Again, part of the mod could be accomplished if JJJ is interested to program a search function to replace numbers in the simulation.xml file instead of the entire file via jsgme.

Another point to consider is that there should be only two mods to cover the years from 1915-1916 and 1917-1918.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/10/22 01:50 PM

Where we do have historical figures for time between overhaul for a particular engine that can be compared directly with the engine failure figures in a WOFF xdp file, it is for the H-S 8Ba used in the SE5a.

The official British historical TBO for this engine was 60 hrs, but there is evidence that it could have been as low as 20 hrs in the field. It was known to have had problems with the gearing, at least when first introduced. The 60 hr official figure (for the engine once initial problems were ironed out?) gives 2% (rounded up) failure rate per hour. The 20 hr figure (for the engine as originally used) gives 5% failure rate per hr. The figures in the WOFF xdp file for the SE5a works out at 4% (rounded up), very close to the 20 hr TBO.
Posted By: VonS

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/10/22 03:28 PM

@All, very pleased to read the latest posts in this thread gents' - the engine mod really seems to be taking off (sorry for the pun). smile2

@BB, the sim.xml file that caused error messages in WoFF for me contained values half-way between overhaul nos., and frequency nos., in Set 1 and Set 2 (so I deleted that problematic file). It may be the case, as you say, that failure values in the xdp files are supplementary to, but not overriding of, those values in sim.xml (simulation.xml) - an interesting idea suggesting that there are two levels then, rather than one, of randomness operating regarding those failure values.

@Bletchley, thank you for that valuable info. and for further observations regarding my test sets - yes, I was testing high values on purpose, hoping to see more random failures, although it would require more flights. I am also noticing the occasional aircraft dropping out of a flight, in campaign mode, with the UE/PE failure values in the sim.xml (quite good for variety). And a good idea regarding removal of those coolant values for rotary engines -- more indication that it is best to keep separate xdp-failure values for rotary vs. inline engines. Here, by the way, is "Set 5" which is stable and gives slightly better (historical?) overhaul/failure times than Set 4 (didn't post Set 5 yesterday) -- frequency/time nos. I had left the same across Sets 4 and 5 (perhaps nos. from Set 5, or nos. close to Set 5, would work best as the zeroed baseline in sim.xml?? -- feel free to tinker with this one too gents'):

<Failure weight="1.0" masterdisable="n">
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="26" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="110" damageAmount_pct="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="3" frequency_secs="116" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="180" damageAmount_pct="6" frequency_secs="40" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="26" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="110" damageAmount_pct="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="3" frequency_secs="119" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="180" damageAmount_pct="6" frequency_secs="40" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="90" damageAmount_pct="2" frequency_secs="37" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="85" damageAmount_pct="40" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="3" frequency_secs="55" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="85" damageAmount_pct="40" dump="y"/>
</Failure>

@Orbyx, good points - I would also prefer that the no. of such engine-failure mods. be kept streamlined, perhaps no more than two or three (early war to mid-1916, mid war then to summer of '17, late war then to end of war, etc.) - might also be possible to get away with only one engine-failure mod. if a single baseline is chosen for the sim.xml, and then to plug in missing failure entries even for various aircraft/xdp files currently missing that info. - then there is no need to specify period of war since, for example, each aircraft type has its service dates anyway (thinking out loud, but some streamlining would be preferable to a myriad of mods and sub-mods that toggle engine failure rates) - this would also allow JJJ then to implement only a single radio button in the MultiMod (e.g., "to activate historical engine failure rates per aircraft type for the entire war, click here").

@All, speaking from the perspective of an old-school Mac user (thinking here in terms of object-oriented/end-user results in software) -- if the ratio between failure nos. in xdp (also in the sim.xml file) in WoFF and actual, in-sim failure results is not 1:1 but perhaps something like 1.2:1 or 1.5:1, depending on how failure algorithms/randomizations work in WoFF - it might then be wise to stick with the values from the stock UE/PE sim.xml, for the sim.xml file (around 9% failure rate as Bletchley has indicated, slightly higher than historical in several cases, I suppose) -- and then to fine-tune only in xdp files where failure nos. will be tweaked further, or added, if necessary -- speculating here but that might give something closer to "real world" results than if values in my "Set 5," for example, are used as the zeroed values in the sim.xml file -- think of it as "randomization offset" (offsetting for randomization that will err on the side of not giving engine failure, as opposed to giving engine failure).

Anyway - great thoughts all - I will drop in again in a couple of weeks if I think of something else to add here but will in the meantime keep following this thread with great interest.

Cheers,
Von S

NOTE: if stock UE/PE simulation.xml failure rate nos. are implemented, or even something similar to Set 5 -- falure rates in xdp files where such rates are already present should then be re-adjusted in relation to failure rates in sim.xml (to preserve sim.xml vs. xdp failure proportion and ratios) -- since, currently, at least from what I've seen for the Pfalz D.3a nos., they are adjusted in relation to stock failure nos. in the stock BH&H2 simulation.xml file and might cause imbalances if not re-adjusted when/if a new set of failure nos. is plugged into the sim.xml file.



Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/11/22 03:18 PM

Hi

I have put together a set of 4 failure rules that have a spread of 6% : Early-Mid Rotaries; Late Rotaries; Early-Mid Stationary; Late Stationary. I have used the UE/PE set as my baseline, changing only the average_hrs figures, the figures based on somewhat generalised Time Between Overhaul figures (though I have halved them, as I think they are probably on the optimistic side for engines being maintained in the field). I have so far tested each one just to make sure that they 'work', i.e do not appear to cause and crashing. If my assumption about the way this works is correct then:

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)
Late Rotaries : 4% per hour failure rate (i.e one failure every 25 missions)
Early-Mid Stationary engines : 3% per hour failure rate (i.e. one failure every 33 missions)
Late Stationary engines : 2% per hour failure rate (i.e. one failure every 50 missions)

I have started testing the first, to see if the failure rate matches expectations (it may take a bit of time to build a large enough sample to check this). In campaign the testing can be done by keeping a total of hours flown by aircraft in 'A' and 'B' flight (i.e. 6 aircraft flying a 1 hr mission would total 6), and the number of individual drop-outs from formation. You can then divide the number of total dropouts by total hours flown, multiplied by 100, to arrive at the hourly rate of failure as above. If anyone else wants to have a go, please feel free!

Early-Mid Rotaries

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="70" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="180" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="70" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="114" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="180" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="85" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>


Late Rotaries


<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="200" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="300" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="360" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="200" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="300" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="114" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="360" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="170" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="160" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="300" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="160" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>


Early-Mid Stationary


<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="200" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="250" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="350" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="450" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="200" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="250" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="350" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="114" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="450" 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="250" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="350" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="250" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>


Late Stationary


<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="400" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="600" 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="400" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="70" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="600" 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="250" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="300" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="500" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="300" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
Posted By: JJJ65

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/11/22 04:39 PM

Nice progress, guys. I am patiently waiting for your conclusions and final modding values.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/11/22 09:35 PM

FYI, I was able to successfully copy and paste the failure rules from one aircraft to another (Fokker EIII to a Sopwith Strutter A2) without causing any game exceptions, so at least that is feasible. I am currently testing to see if this seems to make any difference in the failure rate for this aircraft. So far, I haven't noticed any differences, but it is still early.
Posted By: Polovski

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/11/22 09:41 PM

Testing is the key - probably easier to test a base set, then extrapolate from there. It would need many missions, and preferably on different PCs, to get a feel of failure rate in sim - even then luck will play a part.
Posted By: Robert_Wiggins

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/12/22 12:51 AM

Always good to have opinions/advice from the developers!!

Thanks for your input Mark!
Posted By: orbyxP

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/12/22 02:59 AM

I would say start with an obvious outcome to determine your baseline.

For example, I would suggest to test with 100% failure rate only in one of the aircraft xdp files. Of course, I would eliminate the simulation.xml numbers, so that they don't interfere with the test.

Then you should see at 100% failure, there would not be a single mission where the aircraft would not fail. In that case, you know it's working as intended and there is no other factors playing into failure rates. Now you can configure the failure rates from that 100% base without the need to test anything further. As you would have 0%=not a single failure and 100%=always a failed engine. Then if you have a particular aircraft fails 9%, then just configure that percentage into the xdp file and know that it will work if you zero out the sim.xml file.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/12/22 05:29 AM

orbyxP, that is a very good point : the lower the numbers the higher the potential failure rate, so if you replace all the average_hrs numbers with a "1" you should get an extremely high failure rate (if it does not cause the game to crash), as this should give an average failure rate of 8 per hour for a single engine aircraft, and testing to determine that the average failure rate is indeed 8 failures per hour could in theory be done much faster (as missions are likely to be shorter and coarse trends should appear faster). However, there is no 100% failure rate as such, as Polovski has indicated that it is a probabilistic system. Even with a failure rate of 8 per hour it would still be possible to fly several missions in a row with no failures (feeling lucky?). Equally, there would be many missions that last less than 7 and a half minutes. The larger the 'sample' of missions, the closer it should get to the average rate, and as the mission would on average be much shorter than 1 hour, you should be able to test it more quickly. I would think that 100 missions is a reasonable sample size, although coarse indications should be arrived at faster. With all figures replaced with a "1" it should be apparent reasonably quickly, unless you are very lucky, that you have a high failure rate - just not how high! Replacing all average_hrs numbers with a "0" should lead to either zero engine failures, or an immediate engine failure as soon as the engine is switched on, or a game crash. I guess the extreme ends of this spectrum (using 1 or 0) might produce instability in the game or PC. Anybody like to try it?

My guess is that if there are instructions for engine failure in the aircraft file, these are used by the game in preference to the instructions in the simulation file, rather than using one to modify the other (as the format in both is identical, except for the Fokker E IV where the coolant-related figures have been removed). If so, the game 'looks' first to the aircraft file for instructions, and if it fails to find them there it 'looks' to the simulation file as the default (?). Not sure how to test this without potentially crashing the game. I guess if you replaced all the numbers for average_hrs in an aircraft file that has them with "999" and all the numbers in the simulation file with "1" and then fly that aircraft you should be able to tell fairly quickly which file, aircraft or simulation, the game is taking instructions from - but not conclusively if one is modifying the other in some way.

If those who feel they might want to use the mod are happy with the 8-4-3-2 ratio in the 4 sets above, but think that the spread is too low to be noticeable, then it can be scaled up - to 12-6-4/5-3 or even 16-8-6-4 to maintain the ratio but increase the spread, as no one can sure of the actual historical numbers, the evidence for engine failures being largely anecdotal and TBO being more of a guide. In the end it is what most players would feel happy with, I think.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/12/22 09:40 PM

Interesting points, gentlemen.

I have done some additional testing, switching to a "revised" .xdp for the Sopwith Pup, with the following failure code (not realistic, just for testing):

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="1" damageAmount_pct="20" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="2" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="3" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="112" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="4" damageAmount_pct="8" frequency_secs="25" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="5" damageAmount_pct="11" frequency_secs="40" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="6" damageAmount_pct="6" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="7" damageAmount_pct="55" dump="y"/>

Please note that the default Sopwith Pup does not have a unique "failure" profile, so presumably, it normally relies on the failure rules in the simulation.xml file.

I flew two missions with these rules. In my first mission, I experienced an engine failure approximately five minutes into the mission. Additionally, although I did not "see" any AI experience a failure, on checking the WOFF mission.log after the mission, I noticed that at least two other AI aircraft experienced failures.

In my second mission, I experienced an engine failure approximately 14 minutes into the mission. The mission.log revealed that at least 4 AI aircraft also had either engine or oil reservoir failures. In all, 7 out of 11 aircraft in my squadron suffered some sort of damage, but I can't be sure that all of them were due to system failures. In any event, this seems to establish that modified .xdp files do seem to take precedence over the simulation.xml file.

On a side note, be very careful editing the .xdp files. I experienced a game crash because I originally left out a quotation mark (") in front of the number 7 in the last line of the failure rules listed above.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/12/22 09:51 PM

For anyone involved in testing possible changes to the failure rules, I strongly recommend analyzing the WOFF mission.log after the end of each mission in order to see exactly how many failures occur during a mission. Search for the string "failureStart" to see exactly when failures occur. Already, I have noticed that a single aircraft can experience multiple failures, although I am not sure if the results are cumulative. I also noticed that, 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, and so on. Notably, however, the player aircraft is not always the first to experience a failure during a particular mission.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/13/22 05:06 AM

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.
Posted By: VonS

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 07/13/22 05:42 AM

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
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/07/22 05:35 PM

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"/>


Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/08/22 03:38 AM

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.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/08/22 05:10 AM

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.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/12/22 02:59 AM

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.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/12/22 08:38 AM

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.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/12/22 02:05 PM

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!
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/12/22 06:54 PM

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?.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/12/22 07:56 PM

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!
Posted By: Becker01

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/12/22 09:01 PM

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
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/13/22 11:58 PM

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.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/14/22 06:34 AM

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"/>
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/14/22 09:43 PM

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.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/16/22 08:43 PM

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.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/19/22 09:32 PM

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.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/20/22 05:42 AM

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.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/20/22 05:07 PM

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!
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/20/22 05:14 PM

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.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/21/22 06:04 AM

Ah! I see now, thank you smile

That looks good!

Hugh
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/22/22 04:43 PM

Over the weekend I finished the first round of testing of my revised engine failure settings, and so far, I like the results.

Although my player-controlled aircraft had 0 failures in 11 missions, totaling 10.8 hours of flight (not unexpected, given I would have normally expected just 1 failure in 10 hours of flight), 60 AI aircraft experienced 6 failures in approximately 65 total hours of flight, which is right in line with what we would expect for a 10% per hour failure rate.

Of the six failures, five were "minor" failures, while one could be considered "major" (no fire), although the aircraft was able to successfully land at a nearby airbase.

I think I may tweak the settings slightly, in order to slightly reduce the chances of minor failure and to just slightly increase the chances of major failure.

Of course, keep in mind that any set of given findings can vary extremely widely, given the limited sample size, so we will have to see what happens with further testing.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/22/22 06:44 PM

OK BuckeyeBob, that sounds very promising smile

B.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/28/22 04:15 PM

Although I have made a few tweaks to the engine failure rules, I continue to get good results for the 10% failure rate setting. I estimate that my current failure rate, using these settings, is around 8%. More details later.
Posted By: VonS

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 08/28/22 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by BuckeyeBob
Although I have made a few tweaks to the engine failure rules, I continue to get good results for the 10% failure rate setting. I estimate that my current failure rate, using these settings, is around 8%. More details later.


Sounds interesting BB -- haven't had much time (yet) to explore the engine failure mod. in detail, beyond my few posts early in this thread, but I definitely look forward to further results. Thanks for testing those various nos. further. Also worth keeping in mind, considering that your 10% failure rating is giving "real-world" (i.e., in sim) results of around 8%, is that there may be some kind of offset happening as I briefly speculated in one of my posts -- brief summary follows below (apologies for quoting myself):

"@All, speaking from the perspective of an old-school Mac user (thinking here in terms of object-oriented/end-user results in software) -- [but it may be the case that] the ratio between failure nos. in xdp (also in the sim.xml file) in WoFF and actual, in-sim failure results is not 1:1 but perhaps something like 1.2:1 or 1.5:1, depending on how failure algorithms/randomizations work in WoFF - [...] -- think of it as 'randomization offset' (offsetting for randomization that will err on the side of not giving engine failure, as opposed to giving engine failure)."

Anyway, one of these days I will pop into the simulation.xml file the nos. sets that I posted many posts back and that Bletchley suggested gave an ave. of 13% failure -- but will include some of your modifications BB to alter in favor of minor, as opposed to major, engine problems -- and will tweak/add about six or so individual engine failure nos. for some further aircraft xdp files (such as early Eindeckers) -- giving those about 15-16% ave. failure rate -- will then do some testing to see if that gives me overall "real-world/sim" results that are anywhere between 10-12% (nos. that I will be aiming for and that should give me a nice combo. between fairly historical nos. and seat-of-pants flying). Might take me several weeks to get to that however -- will continue reading this thread in the meantime and thank you to all who are contributing tests and number crunching to this thread -- "you've all done very well!"

Cheers,
Von S smile2
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/01/22 04:21 AM

I have completed approximately 20 hours of flight time for my aircraft and roughly 124 hours of total flight time involving 135 AI aircraft, with the following failure rules:

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="35" damageAmount_pct="12" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="60" damageAmount_pct="30" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="200" 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="275" damageAmount_pct="8" frequency_secs="30" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="75" damageAmount_pct="6" frequency_secs="45" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="125" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>

Here are my results:

My personal aircraft had 3 failures during my 20 hours of flight. Two of these were minor engine failures (the top line) and one involved a more serious failure (the fourth from the top).

The AI had a total of 10 failures in 124 hours of flight time. Five were minor engine failures (top line again) and five were more serious. Only one AI aircraft fatally crashed as a direct result of an engine failure, as best as I can determine.

I think these are acceptable numbers for a 10% failure rate. I particularly like the addition of the minor engine failure in the top line because I think it simulates quite nicely a "rough engine" due to a bad cylinder, valve, spark-plug, etc. I was still able to fly the plane and didn't really even notice the loss of power all that much, although I wouldn't want to fight a dogfight with it! There may be some room to perhaps increase the chances of a major engine or oil system failure a bit, but these numbers seem to work well, without being a source of frustration for the player. Keeping in mind that the number of failures depends, in part, on the number of aircraft in each mission, on average, one of the aircraft in either A or B flight experienced some kind of failure approximately once every two missions, with one stretch where my squadron experienced a failure in five out of six straight missions, with three of the five being minor failures.

BB
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/01/22 07:34 PM

Looking good BB smile

I like the idea of your 12% damage line, it looks like a great addition.

I will add your numbers to my ongoing campaign and give it a whirl.

B.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/01/22 09:19 PM

I think I will lower the line

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="275" damageAmount_pct="8" frequency_secs="30" dump="y"/> to

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="250" damageAmount_pct="8" frequency_secs="30" dump="y"/>

but will otherwise leave these settings alone and keep on testing.
Posted By: VonS

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/04/22 05:09 PM

Thanks for your continued work on the engine failure mod. BB -- looking forward to further results. While tinkering with the Italian front mod. in PE/UE 4.18, I have in the meantime plugged in the following variation on stock UE/PE-era engine damage nos., and it immediately results in a world of hurt, so to speak:

<Failure weight="1.0" masterdisable="n">
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="40" damageAmount_pct="36" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="70" damageAmount_pct="75" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="106" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="14" frequency_secs="30" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="40" damageAmount_pct="36" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="70" damageAmount_pct="75" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="109" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="14" frequency_secs="30" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="27" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="45" damageAmount_pct="55" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="45" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="45" damageAmount_pct="55" dump="y"/>
</Failure>

Failure nos. above, plugged in to simulation.xml in PE/UE 4.18, gave a total of three engine failures for various flights of eight aircraft total (both friendly and enemy flights; this was in the Zepp-busting mission for the Italian mod.). One Alb. D.II experienced engine failure, as well as a standard Alb. D.III, and a SPAD VII. Two SPADs XIII, two Alb. D.V (170hp) variants, and an OAW-built Albatros continued along merrily. In short, the no. of aircraft failing was horrendous (37.5%) and immediately seen. Will perhaps post a few pics. under the Italian mod. thread. Moral of story: will leave stock UE/PE engine failure nos. alone in my PE/UE 4.18 install since the failure rate is already, with those nos., anywhere from 9 to 12% on average, I would say, given various factors and variables - possibly closer to about 15% in actual, in-sim results in my PE/UE install.

Stock UE/PE damage nos. follow below:

<Failure weight="1.0" masterdisable="n">
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="60" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="90" 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="160" 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="90" 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="160" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>

<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="70" 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"/>
</Failure>

I will do some tests of the missions I am tinkering with, for the Italian mod., with the top set of failure nos. included in this post, in BH&H2, to see if the damage/failure results are not as drastic, on ave., as they are in PE/UE 4.18 -- and also to see if the nos. are a better alternative for BH&H2 than stock UE/PE failure nos. copied over -- if the 13% theoretical failure rate of that first set of nos. results in actual in-sim failure rates of about 10 or 11% in BH&H2, I will be pleased. I am/will be testing these nos. via the simulation.xml file -- will look later on into individual failure rates plugged into xdp files for some aircraft -- perhaps after I finish with my missions pack for the Italian mod.

NOTE: impressions above are for modified failure nos. in PE/UE-era WoFF -- future tests will involve plugging in such modified nos. into BH&H2.

Cheers all,
Von S smile2
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/04/22 05:25 PM

Impressive.

I can see why these settings generated such a high failure rate in UE/PE. It will be interesting to see them in BHAH2.

The current settings I am testing in BHAH2 to produce an average 10% failure rate have an hourly failure range of between 35 hours and 250 hours (I will probably bump up the lower number to 40 hours). I see that yours range from 60 to 160, with five of the eight being under 100 hours. You may want to increase those a bit or your AI pilots will have a very rough time, indeed! winkngrin
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/13/22 10:38 PM

Between helping take care of my dad and work on updating version 2.9.2 of the OCM, I haven't had much of a chance to do any significant testing of the engine mod. However, now that I made most of the changes I wanted to make to the cloud mod, I should have a little more time to do some testing.
Posted By: VonS

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/13/22 10:51 PM

Sounds good BB -- with real work and my on-and-off tinkering with the Italian mod., I haven't had much time to test the various engine mods. extensively on my rig -- so I look forward always to any results posted under this thread. Hopefully by the fall/winter I will have more time to start testing engine mods. too, more consistently than before.

Cheers all,
Von S smile2
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/14/22 08:37 PM

I have been using your figures BB, and have nothing untoward to report, but I am thinking that as your extra failure line results only in a loss of power of 12%, and does not generally force AI pilots or the human player to abandon the mission, this line might be added as an extra (e.i. not as part of the 10% failure rate) : so, major failures would still add up to 10% in early rotaries, with the added line as an extra chance of failure on top. As these minor failures appear to have been very common (often caused by dirt or ice in the carburettor or fuel line) it might be another 10% on top? (so, total chance of failure in early rotary !0% major failure + 10% minor failure, total 20%; but in late war stationary engines 2.5% major + 10% minor, total 12.5%) : <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" dump="y" damageAmount_pct="12" average_hrs="10"/>

B.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/21/22 05:49 AM

I have noticed that when leading a flight, and having a 12% engine failure, the rest of the flight immediately de-select me as flight leader and choose a new one. I guess this must also happen to an AI flight leader - but does the former AI flight leader 'go home' or does he stay with the flight? As the former flight leader I managed to complete the Recce mission without lagging behind the flight, as we were already at cruising altitude when I had the 12% engine failure.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/21/22 06:20 AM

In my experience, flying as flight leader but leaving the AI in control of the plane, my AI pilot remained with the flight after a 12% failure. In fact, I didn't even notice that I wasn't flight leader anymore or that I had a failure until I reviewed the mission log.

I also believe that AI pilots who experience the 12% failure who aren't the flight lead remain with the flight. I'll have to check and see if an AI pilot with a 30% damage amount leaves the flight or not.

Depending on whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, we might consider raising the damage level to 14% or 15%.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 09/21/22 05:27 PM

I am OK with the AI rejecting me as Flight Leader (sniff!). I am quite happy to tag along and complete the mission that way. The only problem is that I generally ignore the waypoints when Flight Leader, so if it happens some way in to the mission the new AI Flight Leader will promptly turn the Flight around and head back to the forming up point before setting off again for the objective. If that happens I sometimes carry on towards the objective on my own, and take the risk of doing the mission solo.

Just to add, no, I am good with the 12% damage line. If the AI pilots stay with the flight, as you say, and try to complete the mission that is cool, I like it smile

I think I may have made a mistake, confusing the 31% damage effect with the new 12% damage effect - must have been looking at the wrong line in the log. I have just a flown a mission where I received 10% engine failure and, like you BB, I noticed no difference until I landed and checked the log. I have upped the damage to 20% just to see what happens now! I guess there must be a threshold level with engine damage where you get the clunk-clunk sound effect, and where the AI falls out of formation with a 'go home' instruction (and where the player or AI Flight Leader looses Flight Leader status).

One other idea - instead of (or as well as) the one-off 12%, you could have a small but cumulative damage effect: say, 1% damage repeated every 60 seconds. After this was triggered you would have a gradual loss of power, unnoticeable at first, until you hit this threshold level, and then you would get the above sound and other effects kicking in but damage would continue to accumulate only slowly. You could have this as an extra line, or replace the existing line <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="120" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/> with <FailureRule
SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>

I have tested the above : <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/> and I think it works well. With damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" you are alerted to something being wrong with a "system failure" message that repeats every 60 seconds, and after about 20 mins the clunk-clunk engine sound effect kicks in. The engine very gradually looses power until the aircraft cannot hold altitude, and eventually you are forced to land - but not for a long time. I had the 1% engine failure start shortly before reaching target altitude, but managed to get up to altitude, fly to the target, complete the mission (a photo recon mission over a friendly airfield) and get back to base. I then flew round and round the home airfield, gradually loosing height and power, until I had to land. There were no further 'threshold effects' other than the clunk-clung rough engine sound, and this continued for the whole flight until I eventually landed and switched off the engine. I had thought that when I reached further damage thresholds I might get oil splatter or engine fire, but I didn't (or maybe I just didn't reach those shresholds before being forced to land). My AI wingman had a one-off 20% engine failure whilst climbing to altitude, and this initiated an immediate LeaveFormation and InitGoHome. He landed successfully back at the home base.

A further observation : I sometimes fly the two-engines Caudron, and I have noticed that when one engine suffers a failure, so does the other one. Although there are two separate lines (engine_one and engine_two) failures do not appear to happen individually. I am not sure if having the two separate engine lines means that the chance of that type of failure is then doubled for two-engine aircraft, or if the second line is redundant. I think I might test to see what happens to two-engine aircraft when there is only the engine_one line (i.e in this case does only one of the two engines fail, or do both still fail in tandem despite the absence of the engine_two line?).

Report back: With the engine_two line taken out a two-engine aircraft will only suffer failure to engine_one. So it is necessary! Further testing indicates that with two-engine aircraft failures to either engine CAN occur independently (see above)

I am now testing the one-off 12% failure line, changed to 15% to see if this initiates a Go Home event (20% does, 12% doesn't)

Report back: 15% doesn't trigger a Go Home event. I will try values between 16% and 19%

B
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/02/22 07:34 PM

Just to pull together a few observations on the damage effects caused by various types of engine failure:

Damage to oil or cooling systems causes immediate heavy damage or lesser damage that accumulates quickly, resulting in immediate or within a short period of time (few minutes) a Leave Formation and Go Home

Generic engine damage requires at least 30 'hits' to the engine before any damage is done. but once damage has started it accumulates (if it is not a one-off event) and may or may not initiate a Leave Formation and Go Home either immediately or at some later point

This means that a one-off 'hit' of 12 will most likely have no apparent immediate effect (unless it is followed up by further 'hits', either by another engine damage event or by combat damage). It requires a one off 'hit' of at least 30-40 to cause damage and, possibly, initiate a Leave Formation/Go Home

A 'hit' of 1, with a repeating 'hit' of 1 every 60 seconds will produce no apparent effect for the first 30 minutes, but between 30-40 minutes in it will start to cause damage, but only slowly, and may initiate a Leave Formation/Go Home at some point (threshold for this appears to be variable)
.
Sound effect of damaged engine appears to kick in at the point that the engine starts to take damage (so, after 30-40 mins in the above case)

These can all combine I think in a random way - so, for example, a one-off hit of 12 would cause no immediate damage effect but could be followed at some point by an accumulating hit of 1 every 60 seconds...or oil/coolant failure...or another one-off hit, but I don't think having one increases the chance of having the other. Can also, I guess, combine with damage caused by AA or in combat with other aircraft.

B.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/03/22 06:14 AM

Thanks, B. I didn't realize you had added a bunch of information to your post of September 21st until I saw your post today. I was also distracted by my work on the cloud mod update, and I also got caught up in my investigation of the AI crashes during airfield and railway station attacks.

Lots of stuff to parse in your above two replies. In no particular order: first, I am confused about two-engine aircraft failures. Does damage always effect both engines, or just one? At first, you seemed to indicate that damage always occurs to both engines, but then you said failures "can occur independently (see above)." To what "above" are you referring to?

Interesting stuff about the "one-off" and accumulating damage effects. I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the one-off events--even the ones with high damageAmount percentages--eventually lead to catastrophic engine failures (I'm not sure about 50% damage to the oil reservoir--that could be an exception). In regard to your proposal of an engine failure that starts out very small and gradually accumulates (1% with a time interval of 60 seconds), I think I like that, but I may need to think about that a little more. You may wish to consider bumping it up to 2%, with a time interval between 90 or 120 seconds, so as to reduce the frequency of "system failure" messages a bit. I guess it will vary from aircraft to aircraft, but at what point would you say that engine damage affects your ability to fly: 20%, 30%, 40%, not to mention the mysterious "Go home" trigger?

Some quick calculations:

1% damage with 60 seconds frequency: 20% engine damage in 20 min, 30% in 30 min, 40% in 40 min, etc.
2% damage with 90 seconds frequency: 20% engine damage in 15 min, 30% in 22.5 min, 40% in 30 min
2% damage with 120 seconds frequency: 20% engine damage in 20 min, 30% in 30 min, 40% in 40 min (same time to failure as your proposal, but 1/2 as many system failure warnings).
3% damage with 120 seconds frequency: 20% engine damage in 13.33 min, 30% in 20 min, 40% in 26.67 min

The other thing to take into account, as you point out, is that all damage to a component, from whatever source, is cumulative. Therefore, if a bullet strike causes 3% of damage to an engine that already has had a system failure of 40%, you now have an engine with 43% damage (and only 57% as much horsepower)!

In regard to the 12% "minor" failure rule, I sort of like that it doesn't trigger an automatic "go home" event, allowing you to choose whether to continue the mission or not. One caveat, however: I don't know if the AI is smart enough to make that decision! I suggest either keeping it the same or setting it to a value somewhat short of the automatic go home trigger.

BB
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/03/22 05:23 PM

I've done a little more testing and I am now pretty sure (Hidden to avoid spoilers. Click at your own risk)!


Damage from "one-off" events, e.g. <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="200" damageAmount_pct="62" dump="y"/> do NOT end in engine fire or explosions unless additional damage occurs, for example from additional flak or bullet strikes.

Damage that accumulates over time, e.g. <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="112" dump="y"/> WILL result in engine destruction and/or fire when the hit points for the engine are eventually exhausted.

Therefore, an engine with the following FailureRule: <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="15" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/> would blow up approximately 100 minutes after the failure occurs, assuming no other damage is taken in the interim. An engine with the following FailureRule: <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="15" damageAmount_pct="2" frequency_secs="90" dump="y"/> would blow up approximately 75 minutes after the failure initially occurs.

Of course, as the "countdown" for eventual total engine failure approaches, your engine will begin to lose more and more power, forcing you or the AI to land, hopefully well before total destruction occurs.


I think something like <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="20" damageAmount_pct="2" frequency_secs="120" dump="y"/> represents the best compromise for this approach.

Cheers!

Edit:The above rules apply only to engine failures. The failure rules affect engines somewhat differently than other components such as oil or coolant reservoirs.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/03/22 08:17 PM

Hi BB, my last but one post was something of a stream-of-consciousness effort - I was just appending to it as I went along, over a number of days, so the end of it rather contradicted the beginning, as I found out more!

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>

I am not sure that the damageAmount_pct="1" represents a 1% loss of power - I think it may be a single 'hit' to the engine (which can sustain 100 hits before it fails completely). From inspecting the log entries I think an engine can sustain up to 30-40 'hits' before there are any damage effects (such as loss of power, or the clunk-clunk damaged engine sound). Look at these log entries for an aircraft that sustained such damage:

At the start

2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 failureStart alb_dva_sq2 0x04011019 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

The second and third line repeats every minute, until

Approx. 30 minutes later, there is a new line added with 1/65

2022/10/02 17:12:07 2499.000000 0x04011019 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/02 17:12:07 2499.000000 0x04011019 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/02 17:12:07 2499.000000 0x04011019 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

This third line is then present every minute thereafter, but the 1/65 goes up to 2/65 a few minutes later

2022/10/02 17:15:07 2679.000000 0x04011019 0x00000004 engine_one 2 / 65

and then 4/65, after another two minutes

2022/10/02 17:17:07 2799.000000 0x04011019 0x00000004 engine_one 4 / 65

at which point, 2 seconds later, a Leave Formation/Go Home is triggered, approximately 35 minutes after the engine started taking 'hits' (i.e 35 hits, or 6% loss of engine power?)

2022/10/02 17:17:09 2800.687500 AIF::LeaveFormation Jasta 41-C ID(6002) 0x04011019 alb_dva_sq2 1
2022/10/02 17:17:09 2800.687500 TacsPush(TACS_TRANSIT_F) Jasta 41-C 0x04011019 alb_dva_sq2 APPEND
2022/10/02 17:17:09 2800.687500 AI_Formation::InitGoHome(GO_HOME_RUN) Jasta 41-C 0x04011019 alb_dva_sq2 td->code==TACS_TRANSIT_F
2022/10/02 17:17:09 2800.687500 TacsChange(TACS_GO_HOME) Jasta 41-C 0x04011019 alb_dva_sq2 REPLACE
2022/10/02 17:17:09 2800.687500 TacticsGoHome::InitGoHome GO_HOME_RUN Jasta 41-C 0x04011019
2022/10/02 17:17:09 2800.687500 0x04011019 goFriendly run newWayptIx 7 currWayptIx 4 route.size 8
2022/10/02 17:17:09 2800.687500 AIF::InitTransit Jasta 41-C 0x04011019 alb_dva_sq2 7 Landing

The aircraft continued to accumulate 'hits' until it landed with 20/65 which, I would guess, represents a 31% loss of power? I have also seen the "overallDamage 0 / 10" go up to 1/10 or 2/10 when there has been a lot of damage (representing damage to the aircraft structure from excessive vibration?).

So I think it is the 1/65...2/65 that is the start of the power loss, which also triggers the Go Home. The threshold where this starts to happen is not fixed. So far I have seen it occurring around 30-40 'hits', but the variation might be wider. The accumulation of 'effects' figure is not linear in the above example: it remained at 1/65 for three minutes before increasing to 2/65 and then 4/65 two minutes later (but I think it accelerates as time goes by). This makes more sense to me, the engine loosing exponentially more power as damage accelerates rather than a linear gradual decrease in power from 100%-0%. I think only damage types that have this 'accumulator' (frequency_secs=) get worse in this way over time.

Here is one for gradual coolant loss:

2022/10/02 16:56:51 1583.000000 failureStart se5a_sq1 0x04011034 coolant_reservoir 190.000000
2022/10/02 16:56:51 1583.000000 0x04011034 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000002 coolant_reservoir 0.040000
2022/10/02 16:56:51 1583.000000 0x04011034 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/02 16:56:51 1583.000000 0x04011034 0x00000002 coolant_reservoir 1 / 38

The damage accumulates every minute: 2/38...3/38...at which point it gets the Go Home instruction and lands after 10 minutes with a total of 36 'hits' and 9/38 damage (27% loss of coolant? The drop in this case appears to be linear, a constant leak)

The one-off damage events are, I think, just that. I don't have a log entry for one now, but I have noted several including one for your 12% failure line), and they always look like:

2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 failureStart alb_dva_sq2 0x04011019 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.120000
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

with no further repetition.

A 'hit' of 30+ (e.g. 31) looks like that, but with the extra damage line, so something like

2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 failureStart alb_dva_sq2 0x04011019 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.310000
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

but with no further repetition.

I hope that makes more sense!

So far as the two-engine aircraft goes, I think their engines can fail independently so long as there are two failure lines (one for engine_one and one for engine_two). If there is only a line for engine_one, then engine_two will not fail. But I get the impression that they may not be entirely independent - after one engine fails, I have noticed that the other one also starts to fail either immediately or at a slightly later time. But that may just be coincidence, based on only a very few observations. I will have to test more to confirm if this is the case.

"Damage that accumulates over time, e.g. <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="112" dump="y"/> WILL result in engine destruction and/or fire when the hit points for the engine are eventually exhausted"

That may be so, or the engine might just conk out. We would have to test that. Or engine fires might be another 'threshold' event associated with a particular damage type, such as oil loss. I have not yet seen any engine fires in the logs as a result of engine failure. Does the engine reach 65/65 before it receives 100 hits? Or does one or the other cause an engine fire? I don't know, but I guess we can test for that...

"I think something like <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="20" damageAmount_pct="2" frequency_secs="120" dump="y"/> represents the best compromise for this approach"

Yes, that would make the warning messages less intrusive - or even damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="300" which would give the same result but even less intrusively.

B.




Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/03/22 09:29 PM

Good points, B.

Edit: I originally wrote a reply agreeing with almost everything you said in your above analysis, but the short answer is I think we need more testing. For example, what is the specific function of the damageAmount_pct value, and why does it also accumulate over time (not for the "one-off" events, obviously), along with the "1/65" value? BTW, I think the 65 in this case represents the total "hit points" for that particular component. I have noticed that that number varies, depending on what structure it refers to. Once that number is exhausted, the component is effectively destroyed, although it may not always result in a fire or other catastrophic event.

Along with you, I have also noticed that sometimes the 1/65 value ticks up exactly according to the value in the frequency_secs setting, but at other times it does not.

Perhaps the damageAmount_pct value sets an initial level of damage that ticks off only once the 1/65 value starts kicking in? And what determines when the 1/65 value is triggered?

Fortunately, we should be able to figure this out with more testing. Do you think we should move this to a private thread and invite anyone else, like VonS, who might be interested?
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/03/22 10:12 PM

Here's my guess: the damageAmount_pct value and the frequency_secs value interact with each other in cases of gradual (not one-off) events and influence how fast the component's hit points are used up.

For example, with the Albatross example, the <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/> line, combined with the 65 hit points for that engine, means that every 60 seconds, 1% of damage is applied to the hit points, meaning, in this case, the value decreased by 0.65 points per minute (this may account for why the value jumped from 1/65 to 2/65 to 4/65 in approximately five minutes.

I can't determine how this effects your Se5 example, since I don't know the frequency_secs value.

In any event, more testing is required (or a few hints from OBD)!
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/04/22 04:43 AM

Quote
The one-off damage events are, I think, just that. I don't have a log entry for one now, but I have noted several including one for your 12% failure line), and they always look like:

2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 failureStart alb_dva_sq2 0x04011019 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.120000
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

with no further repetition.

A 'hit' of 30+ (e.g. 31) looks like that, but with the extra damage line, so something like

2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 failureStart alb_dva_sq2 0x04011019 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.310000
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/02 16:43:07 759.000000 0x04011019 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

Hmm. I just flew a mission with altered failure rules and got a one-off event as follows (note it does not match the last line in your example directly above):

2022/10/03 02:59:50 1323.000000 failureStart sopwith_pup_sqd 0x04011002 oil_reservoir 2.000000
2022/10/03 02:59:50 1323.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 0.500000
2022/10/03 02:59:50 1323.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/03 02:59:50 1323.000000 0x04011002 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 17 / 35
2022/10/03 02:59:50 1323.437500 AIF::LeaveFormation RFC-54-B ID(6000) 0x04011002 sopwith_pup_sqd 1

These results appear inconsistent. Why does your engine show 1/65 damage, while my oil reservoir immediately shows 17/35 damage? Shouldn't your engine show something like 20/65? It looks like engines are treated differently than other components. Perhaps because they are dynamic and have moving parts, in which damage is not immediately apparent?

I need to look at a few more mission logs.... reading
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/04/22 05:28 AM

Hi BB,

"For example, with the Albatross example, the <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/> line, combined with the 65 hit points for that engine, means that every 60 seconds, 1% of damage is applied to the hit points, meaning, in this case, the value decreased by 0.65 points per minute (this may account for why the value jumped from 1/65 to 2/65 to 4/65 in approximately five minutes"

Yes, that makes sense of the data - it would be a linear damage effect with time, but delayed (not kicking in until c. 30 hit points have accumulated) and determined by the resilience of the component (1% of 65 in the case of the engine as a whole)

"I can't determine how this effects your Se5 example, since I don't know the frequency_secs value"

It was 4, so it matches your analysis, as it went up in regular steps equivalent to 4% of 38 for every minute.

"These results appear inconsistent. Why does your engine show 1/65 damage, while my oil reservoir immediately shows 17/35 damage? Shouldn't your engine show something like 20/65? It looks like engines are treated differently than other components. Perhaps because they are dynamic and have moving parts, in which damage is not immediately apparent?"

That last example of mine was from memory, as I no longer have the log entry. Will have to check that against further log entries, but I think the first 30 hits might be discounted for the generic engine value (otherwise, in the incremental damage example, it would have started at 20/65 after a delay of 30 minutes).

For the gradual coolant loss example there is no delay, as with your oil loss example - as soon as the first 4 hit points are applied to the coolant system it takes 1/38 damage and continues every minute to 2/38...3/38...until 9/38 (when the aircraft landed).

I think the overall damage figure of 1/20 or 2/20 indicates loss of aircraft structural integrity - so if it reached 20/20 the aircraft would fall apart in flight (wings or tail come off, as in too fast a dive or pull-out?). So far, I have not seen engine damage increase this to more than 2/20. I guess excessive vibration from a self-destructing engine (or bits thrown off it) would damage the aircraft structure (maybe with progressive effects as threshold levels are reached?)

"I need to look at a few more mission logs.... "

Yes, more testing BB!

B

Edit: I don't think it is necessary to start a private thread. If you are worried by 'spoilers' then, I think, anyone following this thread will realise that it is in the Mods section of the forum, and there will be spoilers. If they don't want to know what is 'under the hood' of the game they should not be reading this thread! Making it a private thread might very well close it off to others who would like to test the Mod, or who have ideas and analysis that we have not arrived at. The more the merrier, I think smile
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/04/22 04:21 PM

Excellent, I think we are in agreement, although I agree with you that more testing is required. Speaking of which, I ran a mission last night that had four separate failures to three different aircraft--a record in my testing, so far. I'll post the relevant parts of the mission log when I get home tonight. Some of the output doesn't make sense to me.

Quote
I think the overall damage figure of 1/20 or 2/20 indicates loss of aircraft structural integrity - so if it reached 20/20 the aircraft would fall apart in flight (wings or tail come off, as in too fast a dive or pull-out?). So far, I have not seen engine damage increase this to more than 2/20. I guess excessive vibration from a self-destructing engine (or bits thrown off it) would damage the aircraft structure (maybe with progressive effects as threshold levels are reached?)

This makes sense. Once the human controlled aircraft gets to 2/20 or 3/20, the cockpit seems to start shaking and rattling.

Agree about the private thread. I may continue to post some of my findings behind spoilers, however.

Cheers!
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/05/22 05:23 AM

Hi BB, this is from yesterday. I changed 12% one-off failure to 30% to check that only 1/65 damage was caused and to see if it generated a Go Home. I had several results, all consistent:

2022/10/04 20:08:40 549.000000 failureStart re_sq2 0x04011046 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/04 20:08:40 549.000000 0x04011046 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.300000
2022/10/04 20:08:40 549.000000 0x04011046 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 20:08:40 549.000000 0x04011046 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

2022/10/04 20:26:54 1575.375000 DISBAND RFC-16-C ID(6010) 0x04011044 re_sq2 currTactic TACS_LAND
2022/10/04 20:26:54 1575.375000 AIF::LeaveFormation RFC-16-C ID(6010) 0x04011045 re_sq2 1
2022/10/04 20:26:54 1575.375000 TacsPush(TACS_LAND) RFC-16-C 0x04011045 re_sq2 APPEND
2022/10/04 20:26:54 1575.375000 AIF::LeaveFormation RFC-16-C ID(6010) 0x04011046 re_sq2 1
2022/10/04 20:26:54 1575.375000 TacsPush(TACS_LAND) RFC-16-C 0x04011046 re_sq2 APPEND
2022/10/04 20:26:54 1575.375000 AIF::LeaveFormation RFC-16-C ID(6010) 0x04011047 re_sq2 1
2022/10/04 20:26:54 1575.375000 TacsPush(TACS_LAND) RFC-16-C 0x04011047 re_sq2 APPEND
2022/10/04 20:26:54 1575.375000 AIF::LeaveFormation RFC-16-C ID(6010) 0x04011048 re_sq2 1
2022/10/04 20:26:54 1575.375000 TacsPush(TACS_LAND) RFC-16-C 0x04011048 re_sq2 APPEND


2022/10/04 20:10:06 635.000000 failureStart alb_dva_sq1 0x04011010 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/04 20:10:06 635.000000 0x04011010 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.300000
2022/10/04 20:10:06 635.000000 0x04011010 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 20:10:06 635.000000 0x04011010 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65


2022/10/04 20:19:44 1146.000000 failureStart camel_sq3 0x04011040 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/04 20:19:44 1146.000000 0x04011040 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.300000
2022/10/04 20:19:44 1146.000000 0x04011040 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 20:19:44 1146.000000 0x04011040 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65


2022/10/04 20:23:25 1367.000000 failureStart alb_dva_ac2 0x04011007 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/04 20:23:25 1367.000000 0x04011007 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.300000
2022/10/04 20:23:25 1367.000000 0x04011007 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 20:23:25 1367.000000 0x04011007 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

2022/10/04 20:33:18 1960.000000 0x0401100D RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.300000
2022/10/04 20:33:18 1960.000000 0x0401100D overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 20:33:18 1960.000000 0x0401100D 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

You can see several failures, but none of them led to Go Home, and they all appeared to maintain formation and continue with their mission. In the first example you can see the squadron breaking up to land shortly after the 30% hit to 0x04011046, but 0x04011046 landed normally.

I have seen one aircraft get up to 41 hits before suffering 1/65, and it went on to 45 hits and 4/65 before the Go Home (incrementing at 1% per minute), so I think the thresholds are variable to some extent. I have seen 2/10 overall damage kick in at 7/65.

B.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/05/22 05:27 AM

Quote
I ran a mission last night that had four separate failures to three different aircraft--a record in my testing, so far. I'll post the relevant parts of the mission log when I get home tonight. Some of the output doesn't make sense to me.

Here are the mission results:


2022/10/04 01:07:54 2613.000000 failureStart sopwith_pup_sq1 0x04011004 engine_one 200.000000
2022/10/04 01:07:54 2613.000000 0x04011004 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.620000
2022/10/04 01:07:54 2613.000000 0x04011004 overallDamage 5 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 01:07:54 2613.000000 0x04011004 0x00000004 engine_one 67 / 77
2022/10/04 01:07:55 2615.562500 INCREASE_COMP was 6.000000 simHz 0x0000000000084B01 now comp simHz 0x0000000000042580
2022/10/04 01:07:55 2616.687500 AIF::LeaveFormation RFC-54-B ID(6000) 0x04011004 sopwith_pup_sq1 1

Pretty straightforward, but I have some questions: as you can see, this is a "one-off' engine failure, with 62% damage applied to the engine. Looking at the Sopwith Pup.xdp file, the total hit points for the engine is 57, but 57 * .062 = 35.3. Nevertheless, the fourth line shows a value of 67 / 77? Also, note the overallDamage value of 5 / 10.

The next pilot suffers two failures. The first is to his engine, and the second is to his oil reservoir, approximately 30 minutes later (note that he is still apparently flying, despite the damage to the engine earlier in the flight.

2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 failureStart sopwith_pup_sq1 0x0401100B engine_one 60.000000
2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.300000
2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B 0x00000004 engine_one 37 / 77
2022/10/04 01:04:01 1299.812500 AIF::LeaveFormation RFC-54-A ID(6001) 0x0401100B sopwith_pup_sq1 1

2022/10/04 01:08:58 3099.000000 failureStart sopwith_pup_sq1 0x0401100B oil_reservoir 125.000000
2022/10/04 01:08:58 3099.000000 0x0401100B RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 0.500000
2022/10/04 01:08:58 3099.000000 0x0401100B overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 01:08:58 3099.000000 0x0401100B 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 17 / 35
2022/10/04 01:08:58 3099.000000 0x0401100B 0x00000004 engine_one 37 / 77

This aircraft had a "one-off" engine failure of 30% as compared to the first aircraft. The overallDamage value is less, at 2 / 10, as is the damage amount of 37 / 77. Then, he experiences a second failure to his oil reservoir, which loses 50% of its hit points. Despite the two failures, as best as I can tell, he was still flying or had safely landed when I ended the mission, approximately 28 minutes later.

Now, look at this poor sod. I have never seen this before. Apparently, the damage to his oil reservoir also damages his fuselage, left flap, right elevator, and right stabilizer. Either that, or he was simultaneously hit by enemy fire, but I don't think that is likely.

2022/10/04 01:12:52 4236.000000 failureStart sopwith_pup_sq1 0x04011007 oil_reservoir 125.000000
2022/10/04 01:12:52 4236.000000 0x04011007 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 0.500000
2022/10/04 01:12:52 4236.000000 0x04011007 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 01:12:52 4236.000000 0x04011007 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 17 / 35
2022/10/04 01:12:52 4236.000000 0x04011007 0x00000012 fuselage_structure 6 / 171
2022/10/04 01:12:52 4236.000000 0x04011007 0x00000019 left_flap 10 / 116
2022/10/04 01:12:52 4236.000000 0x04011007 0x00000028 elevator_right 7 / 40
2022/10/04 01:12:52 4236.000000 0x04011007 0x00000044 right_horizontal_stabilizer 1 / 32

So, everything appears relatively straight-forward, except for the engine damage rules. Why does the engine have a higher number of hit points in the failure rules than it does in the .xdp file? For all the other components, the numbers in the failure rules match the number in the .xdp file. flap: 116 / 116, elevator: 40 / 40, stabilizer: 32 / 32, fuselage 171 / (45+45+45+36). Curious. Edit (October 9): Also note the overallDamage value is 2 / 10. Most of the time, for non-engine failures like this, the overallDamage is 0 / 10. Does this represent a random chance of structural damage in cases of severe failure like this?


Edit: Ah, I just missed your post, but it is way past my bedtime now, so I will have to respond later today.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/05/22 01:11 PM

!!!

"2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 failureStart sopwith_pup_sq1 0x0401100B engine_one 60.000000
2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.300000
2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B 0x00000004 engine_one 37 / 77"

Are we both using the same version of WOFF, BB? I am using BH&H II patched to the most recent patch, with no mods (other than my Missions mod, and I don't think that would make a difference)

B.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/05/22 03:17 PM

Looking at our last several posts, I also see the inconsistency:

You reported several engine failures like this:

2022/10/04 20:23:25 1367.000000 failureStart alb_dva_ac2 0x04011007 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/04 20:23:25 1367.000000 0x04011007 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.300000
2022/10/04 20:23:25 1367.000000 0x04011007 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 20:23:25 1367.000000 0x04011007 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

I found several like the above, but I also saw this on at least one occasion:

2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 failureStart sopwith_pup_sq1 0x0401100B engine_one 60.000000
2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.300000
2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B 0x00000004 engine_one 37 / 77
2022/10/04 01:04:01 1299.812500 AIF::LeaveFormation RFC-54-A ID(6001) 0x0401100B sopwith_pup_sq1 1

I am also using BHaH2 with the latest patch. The only difference I can see is the overallDamage value is different. So, the question is whether the overallDamage variable is dependent or independent of damageAmount_pct. The above suggests that it may be independent and is itself the trigger for "LeaveFormation" orders. Maybe there is some randomization involved with the overallDamage value? Perhaps to simulate random damage to a critical engine component?

The mystery deepens.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/05/22 06:02 PM

Are you using any mods that might effect this, BB?

Or maybe it is a difference in time period. Mine were taken from 1918, but I guess yours must be 1916/17

Not sure what else it could be....

B.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/05/22 10:34 PM

No, just weather mods. No FM or damage mods, other than the modified engine failure rules we have been testing.

I think the overallDamage value may randomly vary when a failure rule is triggered. Either that, or the higher the % failure, the higher the overallDamage value may be.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/06/22 05:32 AM

Hi BB, yes, no, maybe smile

The thing I don't understand at the moment is the different figures in the line:

2022/10/04 20:23:25 1367.000000 0x04011007 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B 0x00000004 engine_one 37 / 77

I have assumed that, as the format 1/65 and 37/77 is the same as the overallDamage format 1/10 (apparently, a fraction?), this must be a damage figure for the engine. But why is yours a base 77 and mine, consistently, a base 65 (regardless of aircraft or engine type)?

Unless 65 and 77 are not base values, but a percentage expressed as a fraction that can change, so 1.53% is expressed as 1/65 and 48.05% is expressed as 37/77 (in much the same way that you can express 0.25 as 1/4 or 2/8)?

The higher figures for yours, 2/10 and 37/77, might be explained by prior engine damage (flak or combat? Could you have missed that earlier in the log entry?), or may be the result of some inbuilt randomness (maybe the '30%' is not '30 hits' that cause accumulating damage 1-100 but a percentage chance of causing 'some' damage from an event, such as single bullet strike or engine failure, which is then applied as a variable and expressed as a fraction?). In my previous example of:

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>

This could result in a 1% chance of causing damage every minute, so for a long time this might result in '0' damage until, by random chance, one of those rolls of the 100-sided die result in 'some' damage (which is variable)
With a single one-off 30 rolls of the same die there is therefore 30% chance of causing 'some' damage (but then, in my case, why is the 'variable' in each example 1/65 - just coincidence?)

Very mysterious, and intriguing, as you say...

Reverse engineering is such fun smile

Keep testing!

(Unless the weather changes I probably won't be able to do much testing now until next week as I am sailing at the weekend).

B.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/06/22 06:25 AM

Yes, no, maybe, I don't know... wink

Quote
The thing I don't understand at the moment is the different figures in the line:

2022/10/04 20:23:25 1367.000000 0x04011007 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

2022/10/04 01:03:59 1289.000000 0x0401100B 0x00000004 engine_one 37 / 77

I have assumed that, as the format 1/65 and 37/77 is the same as the overallDamage format 1/10 (apparently, a fraction?), this must be a damage figure for the engine. But why is yours a base 77 and mine, consistently, a base 65 (regardless of aircraft or engine type)?

I looked up the hit point values for the engines in the Re8, Camel, and Alb DVa, in their respective .xdp files and found that they all have 45 hit points. The hit points for the Pup is 57. Therefore, it appears for purposes of the failure rules, that engines get a 20 point "bonus" that other components do not get when the failure rules are applied. As I suggested above, I think engines are treated differently than damage to the other components.

Quote
Unless 65 and 77 are not base values, but a percentage expressed as a fraction that can change, so 1.53% is expressed as 1/65 and 48.05% is expressed as 37/77 (in much the same way that you can express 0.25 as 1/4 or 2/8)?

Interesting. That is certainly a possibility that will have to be explored. However, I think the denominator for engines, at least, is always the hit point value + 20. I still have no idea how the numerator for engines are calculated.

Quote
The higher figures for yours, 2/10 and 37/77, might be explained by prior engine damage (flak or combat? Could you have missed that earlier in the log entry?), or may be the result of some inbuilt randomness (maybe the '30%' is not '30 hits' that cause accumulating damage 1-100 but a percentage chance of causing 'some' damage from an event, such as single bullet strike or engine failure, which is then applied as a variable and expressed as a fraction?). In my previous example of:

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>

This could result in a 1% chance of causing damage every minute, so for a long time this might result in '0' damage until, by random chance, one of those rolls of the 100-sided die result in 'some' damage (which is variable)
With a single one-off 30 rolls of the same die there is therefore 30% chance of causing 'some' damage (but then, in my case, why is the 'variable' in each example 1/65 - just coincidence?)

Could be, but I can't say one way or another yet. I will post some more mysterious results later.

Cheers!
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/06/22 08:11 AM

"I looked up the hit point values for the engines in the Re8, Camel, and Alb DVa, in their respective .xdp files and found that they all have 45 hit points. The hit points for the Pup is 57"


Ah..OK! That explains why I am getting x/65 and you are getting x/77, so I think we can discount my more convoluted theory smile


"The higher figures for yours, 2/10 and 37/77, might be explained by prior engine damage (flak or combat? Could you have missed that earlier in the log entry?), or may be the result of some inbuilt randomness (maybe the '30%' is not '30 hits' that cause accumulating damage 1-100 but a percentage chance of causing 'some' damage from an event, such as single bullet strike or engine failure, which is then applied as a variable and expressed as a fraction?). In my previous example of:

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>

This could result in a 1% chance of causing damage every minute, so for a long time this might result in '0' damage until, by random chance, one of those rolls of the 100-sided die result in 'some' damage (which is variable)
With a single one-off 30 rolls of the same die there is therefore 30% chance of causing 'some' damage (but then, in my case, why is the 'variable' in each example 1/65 - just coincidence?)"


Thinking about this a bit more, it cannot be the explanation (or not the full explanation), because once the first damage has been registered (1/65) in an 'accumulator' further 1% per minute 'hits' appear to increase the damage in a linear way, rather than as a random 1/100 chance. The engine component does appear to absorb a (somewhat variable) number of 'hits' before registering any damage (whereas oil and coolant systems register damage immediately). If the variable is large enough it could explain why a one-off 30% 'hit' to my Camel engine resulted in only 1/65 damage, whereas the same 30% 'hit' to your Pup resulted in 37/77 damage. The problem with that, however, is that all of my 30% 'hits' appeared to yield a consistent 1/65 instead of a range of outcomes (just coincidence?)

B.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/08/22 09:58 PM

In a previous post, BB and Bletchley said:

Quote
"Damage that accumulates over time, e.g. <FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="150" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="112" dump="y"/> WILL result in engine destruction and/or fire when the hit points for the engine are eventually exhausted"

Quote
That may be so, or the engine might just conk out. We would have to test that. Or engine fires might be another 'threshold' event associated with a particular damage type, such as oil loss. I have not yet seen any engine fires in the logs as a result of engine failure. Does the engine reach 65/65 before it receives 100 hits? Or does one or the other cause an engine fire? I don't know, but I guess we can test for that...

I tested this, and DO NOT CLICK UNLESS YOU DON'T MIND KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN THIS TYPE OF FAILURE OCCURS:


This type of engine damage eventually results in an engine fire and potential loss of the whole aircraft, unless the pilot lands as soon as possible. The same type of accumulating damage to other components such as oil or coolant reservoirs, does not result in fire and eventual loss of the whole aircraft. Instead, loss of either the oil or coolant reservoir will cause your engine to eventually lose power and conk out, but it will not catch fire, unless the engine itself has also suffered catastrophic damage. This is due to how damage to specific components is handled in each aircraft's .xdp file. "One-off' engine failures also do not result in engine fires, unless the engine accumulates further damage and exhausts all of its hit points.

Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/09/22 11:53 PM

Did some more testing today:

2022/10/05 22:02:54 682.000000 failureStart alb_dv_later_sq1 0x0401101A coolant_reservoir 285.000000
2022/10/05 22:02:54 682.000000 0x0401101A RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000002 coolant_reservoir 0.500000
2022/10/05 22:02:54 682.000000 0x0401101A overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:02:54 682.000000 0x0401101A 0x00000002 coolant_reservoir 16 / 32
2022/10/05 22:02:54 682.125000 AIF::LeaveFormation MFJ I-A ID(6005) 0x0401101A alb_dv_later_sq1 1

This seems pretty consistent with previous findings. A "one-off" failure, resulting in 0.50 damage to the coolant reservoir led directly to a 50% loss of hit points for this component, causing an immediate leave formation order.

Later, I changed a line in the failure rules to produce this kind of failure: "oil_reservoir" average_hrs="4" damageAmount_pct="6" frequency_secs="45" dump="y"/> This produced the following result:

2022/10/05 22:52:21 1327.000000 failureStart sopwith_pup_sqd 0x04011002 oil_reservoir 4.000000
2022/10/05 22:52:21 1327.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 0.060000
2022/10/05 22:52:21 1327.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:52:21 1327.000000 0x04011002 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 2 / 35
2022/10/05 22:52:21 1332.312500 AIF::LeaveFormation RFC-54-B ID(6000) 0x04011002 sopwith_pup_sqd 1

2022/10/05 22:52:48 1372.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 0.060000
2022/10/05 22:52:48 1372.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:52:48 1372.000000 0x04011002 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 9 / 35

2022/10/05 22:53:18 1417.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 0.060000
2022/10/05 22:53:18 1417.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:53:18 1417.000000 0x04011002 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 14 / 35

2022/10/05 22:54:03 1462.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 0.060000
2022/10/05 22:54:03 1462.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:54:03 1462.000000 0x04011002 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 18 / 35

2022/10/05 22:54:48 1507.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 0.060000
2022/10/05 22:54:48 1507.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:54:48 1507.000000 0x04011002 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 25 / 35

2022/10/05 22:55:33 1552.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 0.060000
2022/10/05 22:55:33 1552.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:55:33 1552.000000 0x04011002 0x00000003 oil_reservoir 32 / 35

A few observations:

1) As expected, this produced a "AddDamageToSystem_frac" of 0.06 every 45 seconds after the failure occurred.

2) However, this did not always translate into a 6% loss of hit points every 45 seconds. Here is a rundown:
00 seconds after failure: 02 / 35 = -02.1%
45 seconds after failure: 09 / 35 = -25.7%
90 seconds after failure: 14 / 35 = -40.0%
135 seconds after failure: 18 / 35 = -54.4%
180 seconds after failure: 25 / 35 = -71.4%
225 seconds after failure: 32 35 = -91.4% total loss of hit points. Right after this, my engine quit but did not catch fire. The biggest jump was between 0 and 45 seconds, with an increase of 23.6%. After that, the loss was fairly consistent around 15% every 45 seconds until the last report, when it jumped to 20%.

3) the overallDamage value did not change at all, probably representing no loss of structural integrity as a result of this failure. However, in another case involving an oil failure, I did observe an increase in this value over time. Perhaps there is a (hidden) random chance of this type of structural damage occurring?

4) I can't remember if I noticed any change in engine performance until 225 seconds after failure, when the oil hit points were completely exhausted.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/10/22 04:42 AM

On more flight test to report. I'll put it behind a spoiler tag, mainly because the log is quite long.


engine_one damageAmount_pct="8" frequency_secs="30" dump="y"/>

2022/10/05 22:23:11 100.000000 failureStart sopwith_pup_sqd 0x04011002 engine_one 4.000000
2022/10/05 22:23:11 100.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:23:11 100.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/05 22:23:14 130.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:23:14 130.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/05 22:23:22 160.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:23:22 160.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:23:22 160.000000 0x04011002 0x00000004 engine_one 3 / 77

2022/10/05 22:23:51 190.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:23:51 190.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:23:51 190.000000 0x04011002 0x00000004 engine_one 12 / 77

2022/10/05 22:24:06 220.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:24:06 220.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:24:06 220.000000 0x04011002 0x00000004 engine_one 24 / 77
2022/10/05 22:24:06 220.062500 AIF::LeaveFormation RFC-54-B ID(6000) 0x04011002 sopwith_pup_sqd 1

2022/10/05 22:24:34 250.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:24:34 250.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 5 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:24:34 250.000000 0x04011002 0x00000004 engine_one 39 / 77

2022/10/05 22:25:04 280.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:25:04 280.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 5 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:25:04 280.000000 0x04011002 0x00000004 engine_one 50 / 77

2022/10/05 22:25:34 310.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:25:34 310.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 5 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:25:34 310.000000 0x04011002 0x00000004 engine_one 56 / 77

2022/10/05 22:26:00 340.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:26:00 340.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 5 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:26:00 340.000000 0x04011002 0x00000004 engine_one 62 / 77

2022/10/05 22:26:15 370.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:26:15 370.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 5 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:26:15 370.000000 0x04011002 0x00000004 engine_one 68 / 77

2022/10/05 22:26:44 400.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:26:44 400.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 8 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:26:44 400.000000 0x04011002 0x00000004 engine_one 74 / 77

2022/10/05 22:27:14 430.000000 0x04011002 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.080000
2022/10/05 22:27:14 430.000000 0x04011002 overallDamage 8 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/05 22:27:14 430.000000 0x04011002 0x00000004 engine_one 77 / 77

Notes:
1) This was an engine failure, with 8% of damage supposedly being applied every 30 seconds.
2) Nothing seems to happen until 60 seconds after the failure event is triggered, when the engine acquires 3.9% of damage (3 / 77) Note: hit points for the Pup engine is 57, but engines seem to get a 20 point "bonus" when failure rules are applied.
3) 90 seconds after the failure, and the engine now has 15.6% of damage (12 / 77) and the overallDamage goes from 0 / 10 to 2 / 10.
4) 120 seconds after the failure, and the engine now has 31% damage (24 / 77). The aircraft now leaves the formation. Note: this seems to occur when the engine loses somewhere between 20% and 30% of its hit points.
5) 150 seconds after the failure, and the engine now has 51% damage (39 / 77) and overallDamage jumps to 5 / 10.
6) OverallDamage stays at 5 / 10 until 300 seconds after the failure, when it jumps to 8 / 10. The engine continues to lose hit points.
7) 400 seconds after the failure, all of the engine hit points are expended, and

(Don't click unless you want to know exactly what happens)


the engine catches fire.

Make of that what you will!
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/17/22 08:41 PM

Hi BB

I have not had access to the Internet or WOFF for the past week, but I have started testing again...


Some observations: cumulative engine 'hits' (e.g. 1% per 60 seconds) seem to be fairly consistent in their outcomes (although there is some variation in the 'threshold' at which the first 'engine damage effect', in this case1/65, appears and some variation, as you have noted, in the progression). See below for a typical 1% cumulative:

2022/10/09 17:13:19 657.000000 failureStart camel_ac2 0x04011020 engine_one 10.000000
2022/10/09 17:13:19 657.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:13:19 657.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:14:19 717.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:14:19 717.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:14:44 742.125000 0x04011020 camel_ac2 TacticsJoinUp::InitJoinUp Waypoint 0x0401101F camel_ac1 InitFollower

2022/10/09 17:15:19 777.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:15:19 777.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:16:19 837.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:16:19 837.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:17:19 897.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:17:19 897.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:18:19 957.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:18:19 957.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:19:19 1017.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:19:19 1017.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:20:19 1077.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:20:19 1077.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:21:19 1137.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:21:19 1137.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:22:19 1197.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:22:19 1197.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:23:19 1257.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:23:19 1257.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:24:19 1317.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:24:19 1317.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:25:19 1377.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:25:19 1377.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:26:19 1437.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:26:19 1437.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:27:19 1497.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:27:19 1497.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:28:19 1557.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:28:19 1557.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:29:19 1617.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:29:19 1617.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:30:19 1677.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:30:19 1677.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:31:19 1737.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:31:19 1737.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:32:19 1797.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:32:19 1797.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:33:19 1857.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:33:19 1857.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:34:19 1917.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:34:19 1917.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:35:19 1977.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:35:19 1977.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:36:19 2037.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:36:19 2037.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0

2022/10/09 17:37:19 2097.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:37:19 2097.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:37:19 2097.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

2022/10/09 17:38:19 2157.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:38:19 2157.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:38:19 2157.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

2022/10/09 17:39:19 2217.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:39:19 2217.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:39:19 2217.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 1 / 65

2022/10/09 17:40:19 2277.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:40:19 2277.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:40:19 2277.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 2 / 65

2022/10/09 17:41:19 2337.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:41:19 2337.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:41:19 2337.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 2 / 65

2022/10/09 17:42:19 2397.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:42:19 2397.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:42:19 2397.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 2 / 65

2022/10/09 17:43:19 2457.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:43:19 2457.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:43:19 2457.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 4 / 65
2022/10/09 17:43:20 2458.125000 AIF::LeaveFormation AFC-4-A ID(6004) 0x04011020 camel_ac2 1
2022/10/09 17:43:20 2458.125000 TacsPush(TACS_TRANSIT_F) AFC-4-A 0x04011020 camel_ac2 APPEND
2022/10/09 17:43:20 2458.125000 AI_Formation::InitGoHome(GO_HOME_RUN) AFC-4-A 0x04011020 camel_ac2 td->code==TACS_TRANSIT_F
2022/10/09 17:43:20 2458.125000 TacsChange(TACS_GO_HOME) AFC-4-A 0x04011020 camel_ac2 REPLACE
2022/10/09 17:43:20 2458.125000 TacticsGoHome::InitGoHome GO_HOME_RUN AFC-4-A 0x04011020
2022/10/09 17:43:20 2458.125000 0x04011020 goFriendly run newWayptIx 6 currWayptIx 3 route.size 7
2022/10/09 17:43:20 2458.125000 AIF::InitTransit AFC-4-A 0x04011020 camel_ac2 6 Landing

2022/10/09 17:44:19 2517.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:44:19 2517.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:44:19 2517.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 4 / 65

2022/10/09 17:45:19 2577.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:45:19 2577.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 0 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:45:19 2577.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 5 / 65

2022/10/09 17:47:57 2637.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:47:57 2637.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:47:57 2637.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 7 / 65

2022/10/09 17:48:42 2682.875000 AIF::ArrivedAtWaypoint AFC-4-A 0x04011020 camel_ac2 ix 6 Landing
2022/10/09 17:48:42 2682.875000 TacsChange(TACS_LAND) AFC-4-A 0x04011020 camel_ac2 REPLACE
2022/10/09 17:48:42 2682.937500 TacticsLand::Start: 0x04011020 camel_ac2 Airfield: Mont-St-Eloi Altitude: 957.468750 Overall Damage: 20

2022/10/09 17:48:57 2697.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:48:57 2697.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:48:57 2697.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 8 / 65

2022/10/09 17:49:57 2757.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:49:57 2757.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:49:57 2757.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 8 / 65

2022/10/09 17:50:57 2817.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:50:57 2817.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:50:57 2817.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 8 / 65

2022/10/09 17:51:57 2877.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:51:57 2877.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:51:57 2877.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 10 / 65

2022/10/09 17:52:57 2937.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:52:57 2937.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:52:57 2937.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 12 / 65

2022/10/09 17:53:57 2997.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:53:57 2997.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:53:57 2997.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 14 / 65

2022/10/09 17:54:57 3057.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:54:57 3057.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:54:57 3057.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 14 / 65

2022/10/09 17:55:47 3107.500000 AIF::ArrivedAtWaypoint AFC-4-A 0x04011020 camel_ac2 ix 7 Landing
2022/10/09 17:55:47 3107.500000 TacsChange(TACS_LAND) AFC-4-A 0x04011020 camel_ac2 REPLACE
2022/10/09 17:55:47 3107.562500 TacticsLand::Start: 0x04011020 camel_ac2 Airfield: Mont-St-Eloi Altitude: 419.937500 Overall Damage: 20

2022/10/09 17:55:57 3117.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:55:57 3117.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:55:57 3117.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 14 / 65

2022/10/09 17:56:57 3177.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:56:57 3177.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:56:57 3177.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 16 / 65

2022/10/09 17:57:57 3237.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:57:57 3237.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:57:57 3237.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 18 / 65

2022/10/09 17:58:57 3297.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:58:57 3297.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:58:57 3297.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 18 / 65

2022/10/09 17:59:35 3335.250000 0x04011020 camel_ac2 THRESHOLD ARW 16.265625 speed 24.461600 rangeFromEnd_local 554.869326 rangeFromEnd 554.918118 nearTheEnd 250.000000 reallyNearTheEnd 50.000000

2022/10/09 17:59:42 3342.687500 0x04011020 camel_ac2 ON_FIELD ARW 1.414063 speed 23.221055 rangeFromEnd_local 378.102488 rangeFromEnd 378.143059 nearTheEnd 250.000000 reallyNearTheEnd 50.000000

2022/10/09 17:59:49 3348.937500 0x04011020 camel_ac2 TAXI ARW 1.445313 speed 18.545766 rangeFromEnd_local 249.928009 rangeFromEnd 249.959270 nearTheEnd 250.000000 reallyNearTheEnd 50.000000

2/10/09 17:59:57 3357.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 17:59:57 3357.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 17:59:57 3357.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 18 / 65

2/10/09 18:00:03 3363.687500 0x04011020 camel_ac2 PARK: ENGINE OFF: 49.697956 ARW 1.367188 speed 8.053512 rangeFromEnd_local 49.644427 rangeFromEnd 49.697956 nearTheEnd 250.000000 reallyNearTheEnd 50.000000
2022/10/09 18:00:08 3368.500000 0x04011020 camel_ac2 DONE ARW 1.351563 speed 0.069639 rangeFromEnd_local 28.965034 rangeFromEnd 29.048311 nearTheEnd 250.000000 reallyNearTheEnd 50.000000

2/10/09 18:01:41 3417.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 18:01:41 3417.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 18:01:41 3417.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 18 / 65

2/10/09 18:02:41 3477.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 18:02:41 3477.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 18:02:41 3477.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 20 / 65

2/10/09 18:03:41 3537.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 18:03:41 3537.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 18:03:41 3537.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 22 / 65

2/10/09 18:04:41 3597.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 18:04:41 3597.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 18:04:41 3597.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 25 / 65

2/10/09 18:05:41 3657.000000 0x04011020 RunFailure AddDamageToSystem_frac 0x00000004 engine_one 0.010000
2022/10/09 18:05:41 3657.000000 0x04011020 overallDamage 2 / 10 dontTouchFlag 0 deadFlag 0 deletePendingFlag 0
2022/10/09 18:05:41 3657.000000 0x04011020 0x00000004 engine_one 27 / 65

The first 'damage effect' of 1/65, in this case, came at the 25th 1% 'hit' to the engine. In other cases I have seen this at the 31st 'hit', 33rd 'hit', 41st 'hit' etc.: so there is considerable variation, but the progression thereafter is rapid (though not consistent, as you have noted) and, strangely, appears to continue even after the aircraft has landed and the engine is switched off! The AI pilot will generally break formation and head for home once the 'damage effect' reaches 4/65 (although I think this can vary slightly as well). The AI pilot generally brings the aircraft safely back and lands successfully, but as 'damage effect' continues to go up even after the engine has been switched off I guess there must be the possibility that aircraft that have landed safely may eventually burst into flames if the game continues for long enough (!) I have seen the same basic pattern with a 5% cumulative engine 'hit', where the first 5 hits (5x5 total 25) appeared to have no effect, but the 6th resulted in a 4/65 'damage effect', the next 8/65 (overallDamage now 2/10), the next 14/65, the next 20/65, the next 27/65, and the next 36/65 (overallDamage rising to 5/65 at this point).

B.






Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/18/22 11:34 AM

"a one-off 30% 'hit' to my Camel engine resulted in only 1/65 damage, whereas the same 30% 'hit' to your Pup resulted in 37/77 damage"

This seems to be quite consistent in my tests so far - engines with 77 hit points appear to be far more fragile than those with 65 hit points. They seem to consistently take far more damage from a 30% one-off hit. Not sure yet if this is the same for cumulative damage as well, but your example suggests that it is. Rather odd! The difference is really quite extreme.

Also, I have noticed that you do not need a 100% one-off hit to completely destroy an engine - I had a case in which a 70% one-off hit caused an immediate 65/65 damage to the engine resulting in almost immediate destruction of the aircraft.

B.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/27/22 10:50 PM

Hi, B.

Sorry to not respond until now. Got some personal issues going on.

Yeah, there is still a lot of randomness going on behind the scenes that we don't fully understand, but I don't think we necessarily need to figure it out. As long as we get roughly predictable failure rates, I don't think it matters too much about how that damage plays out in each individual situation. Perhaps we should now focus on fine-tuning the different levels of failure rates and assigning them to the correct aircraft?

Best,
Chris
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/29/22 06:38 AM

Hi BB,

No worries, I have just been plugging away at logging damage effects, when time allows smile

Yeah, the damage effects appear to be somewhat random, but I am getting the impression that the more 'extreme' randomness is associated with the larger 'hits'. So maybe the variability is proportional to the size of the 'hit'.

The smaller 'hits' associated with incremental damage effects appear more consistent - up to a 5% setting at least.

I don't really like the one-off 70% hits - so far every single occurrence has resulted in total destruction of the engine and complete destruction of the aircraft (presumably by fire) just seconds later. I guess this did happen, but from a game-playing point of view this instant and random 'end of career' event is a bit of a downer. I am currently experimenting with a 50% setting instead, to see if this results in enough damage to force an immediate emergency landing without the instant death and destruction effect of the 70% setting.

I am not sure I really like the one-off damage effect at 31% either - this seems to result in either large damage effects, or almost none at all (the AI pilots in the latter case continue as normal, though I guess their engine is now more fragile should any further damage occur from any cause). But maybe that is good.

On the whole, I think I prefer the incremental damage settings...

B.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/30/22 06:24 AM

Here is the 10% setting that I am playing with now (plus an extra 10% chance of a 1% hit per minute):

I have reduced the one-off 70% hit to 50% and I think it works better - still a lot of damage inflicted, enough to force an emergency landing, but not instantly fatal.
I have also combined the one-off coolant and oil lines in with the accumulators to leave just the accumulator for each (but with the same chance of occurrence as the two combined), as I think damage to these systems would most likely accumulate (fluid leaking, filters becoming clogged, overheating) rather than something part failing but not then getting any worse.

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="105" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="105" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="111" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="9" frequency_secs="35" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="35" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="45" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>

B.
Posted By: BuckeyeBob

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 10/31/22 07:55 PM

That makes sense, B, although I am not sure that the 70% hit is always immediately fatal, at least to the non-engine components. I agree about eliminating the "one-off" damage events for the oil and coolant systems, however, in favor of accumulating damage. I had even done some experiments of my own with slowly accumulating damage for the oil and coolant reservoirs, and I think it works fairly well, with the engine eventually quitting if you don't try and land your aircraft.

I'll try and experiment a bit with your new settings whenever I get a chance, but real-life is kicking me a bit in the arse right now, so I can't make any promises.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 11/06/22 07:55 AM

"The AI pilot generally brings the aircraft safely back and lands successfully, but as 'damage effect' continues to go up even after the engine has been switched off I guess there must be the possibility that aircraft that have landed safely may eventually burst into flames if the game continues for long enough (!)"

This does not appear to happen - although an aircraft will continue to accumulate damage to the engine even when on the ground, this doesn't appear to result in destruction of the aircraft. When the damage to the engine reaches 100% (e.g. 65/65), it stops accumulating damage and there is no indication that the aircraft has been destroyed, so I guess it does not burst into flames on the ground as feared.

Also, after suffering a failure of the cooling system I can confirm that the engine DOES reduce in power as the failure progresses, with this type of failure, before finally cutting out.

I have made a slight change: I have made all the time intervals for cumulative engine failure 60 seconds, so that the player will not be able to distinguish one from the other by the interval, and will therefore be kept guessing at the severity

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="105" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="15" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="105" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="15" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="35" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="45" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>

B.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 11/15/22 10:50 AM

I have tweaked this line from 15 to 10, to give the AI pilots a bit more time to land:

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="15" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>

to

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>

This should reduce the number that crash in flames before they reach the airfield...

B.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 11/20/22 07:11 AM

Here is my final (?) version: I am reasonably happy with it, but make any changes that you wish!

Early-Mid Rotaries : 10% per hour minor failure rate plus 10% per hour major 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), HS 200 hp (geared) (Spad XIII, Se5a)

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="105" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="80" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="105" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="35" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="45" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>


Late Rotaries and Early-Mid Stationaries: 10% per hour minor failure rate and 5% per hour major 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)

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="160" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="210" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="280" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="100" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="160" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="210" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="280" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="70" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="90" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>


Late Stationaries : 10% per hour minor failure rate and 2.5% per hour major failure rate : Benz Bz IV (DFW C V), Mercedes D III (Aviatik C I; Roland C II; Albatros D I, Albatros D II, Hannover C LIII; Albatros D III; Albatros D V; Albatros D Va; Pfalz D IIIa; Fokker D VII), HS Viper (SE5a Viper); 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="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="200" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="320" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="420" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="560" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="200" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="320" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="420" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_two" average_hrs="560" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="coolant_reservoir" average_hrs="140" damageAmount_pct="4" frequency_secs="32" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="180" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>

I haven't included those aircraft that have their own failure rules - I will have a look at those next, as they will also need adjusting.

Edit : I have simply added some of these to the general categories - so the geared 200 hp HS (Spad XIII and SE5a) are in the 10% major failure section. Note that the SPAD VII is in the 5% section (generally reliable 150 hp HS with only initial teething problems), and the individual failure rules in the Aircraft files should be removed (I think there must have been some confusion between the 150 hp HS, which was generally reliable, and the 200 hp geared HS which was not). The direct drive 200 hp HS Viper is in the 2.5% section (Se5a Viper). The engine failure rules should be removed from the Gotha GIV - the GII had the unreliable Mercedes DIV engines, but the GIV had reliable Mercedes DIVa engines (a completely different engine, so I think there must have been some confusion here).

Here is a 'special' set of engine failure rules for the Fokker E IV, the DH2 (early) and the Sopwith Strutter (RNAS only). These all had rotaries that were somewhat more unreliable than other early rotaries, so I have given them a 15% major failure set:

<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="10" damageAmount_pct="1" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="25" damageAmount_pct="31" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="50" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="engine_one" average_hrs="50" damageAmount_pct="10" frequency_secs="60" dump="y"/>
<FailureRule SystemID="oil_reservoir" average_hrs="20" damageAmount_pct="5" frequency_secs="50" dump="y"/>

B.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 12/18/22 11:57 AM

I am testing an Engine Failure mod now, one based on the above post but applied to all the 'aircraft' files (i.e. each aircraft has its own failure rules now, as discussed in previous posts in this thread). Happy to send this to anyone who wants to try it out. Once this has been applied (and I would strongly recommend JSGME to do this) there is no further need for any swapping in or out of modified 'simulation' files (as the generic engine failure rules of this file becomes largely redundant). One new change: air-cooled stationary engines such as the RAF1a (BE2) and RAF4a (BE12 and Re8) will no longer suffer a water leak in the cooling system due to random engine failure (although this is still possible if they are damaged in combat). Please PM me if you would like a copy of this mod to try out. This is a test version only at the moment, and I would welcome feedback. The mod appears to be working fine with my BH&HII patched to v.1.35 (the latest patch), but might cause problems with earlier iterations of WOFF and WOFF BH&HII. It will not work with any other mod that modifies the 'aircraft' files, as it overwrites the xdp files and will probably cause errors or a crash (but if you apply via JSGME and you experience problems of this sort you should be able to roll it back again). It is also likely to be effected by further WOFF BH&HII patches, but I will try and keep up to date with these, making any changes to the mod as required (I think a new version of the mod might need to be re-applied after every future patch, unless someone knows a better way of handling this, as cumulative WOFF BH&HII patches may change or re-set the 'aircraft' files to WOFF default).

The failure rate for early-mid rotaries, as in the post above, is very similar to that of the original WOFF failure rate pre BH&HII, the failure rate for late stationaries is very similar to that of WOFF BH&HII, and that for late-war rotaries and early-mid stationaries is mid way between the two. There is also a 'minor failure' rate that is applied to all engines and is fairly common, but rarely leads to anything more than a very gradual loss of power (and only then some considerable time after the engine failure message first appears on your screen). I have done as much research as I can in the time available to make these failure rates as historically accurate as possible in a relative sense (i.e when one engine is compared to another), but the range of failure (currently between 15% per hour for the most unreliable to 2.5% for the most reliable) could be moved up or down for the released version of the mod, dependent on test feedback and the preferences of others who have collaborated in this venture (foremost among them, BuckeyeBob!)

B
Posted By: Polovski

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 12/18/22 07:14 PM

Bletchely good luck with the testing, just one thing the SPAD VII in the sim is 180 HP.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 12/18/22 08:09 PM

Ah, OK, thanks Polovski. From what I can gather the 8Ab 180 hp was also fairly reliable, a higher compression version of the 150 hp 8Aa.

I made a few changes to the positioning of aircraft within the three main bands: most notably, nearly all the Nieuport variants are now in the early-mid rotary (10%) section, with the exception of those late variants with the Le Rhone 9Jb. Similarly, Camels are also in this section, with the exception of the Bentley Camels that are in the 5% section (there is no WOFF Camel with the Clerget 9Bf, which had similar performance and reliability to the Bentley). German aircraft with the Mercedes D.III are now in the early-mid stationary (5%) section, leaving just the D.IIIa and DIIIau of this series still in the late stationary section (2.5%).

B.
Posted By: Becker01

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 12/19/22 07:56 PM

Hallo @Bletchley,

yes, I would like to test it. I think, it's a very interesting theme!

Greetings!
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 12/19/22 09:02 PM

Hi Becker01, if you PM me with your email address I will send you a link to download it.

B.
Posted By: Polovski

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 12/24/22 07:44 PM

OK thanks Bletchley.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/08/23 08:15 AM

Just a quick report on progress so far...

The engine failure mod works fine for me at the moment, and is generating differentiated engine failure by aircraft type as expected, without the requirement to swap in and out edited Simulation files. But the 'alpha' version did generate an initial run time error and CDT after application on starting the first campaign mission - followed by error messages on the second attempt for a small number of aircraft 'slots' (Alb D.III early SQ3, Fokker D.II SQ3, Nieuport N24 SQ2). Suspecting corruption to these three xdp files I replaced them and reapplied the mod successfully, and it now appears to be running perfectly on my system. I uploaded this 'good' version of the mod to my Dropbox for testers to download and try out as the 'beta' version. So far only one other tester has tried it (much thanks to Becker01), and he had the same initial problems with this 'beta' version (now running absolutely fine for me) as I did with my initial 'alpha' version (although with different xdp files generating the errors). More worrying, he could not role it back to the previous un-modded state with JSGME (getting the same error messages for the same xdp files after roll-back) and had to reinstall WOFF BH&H 1.35 to clear the problem. When he downloaded a second version that I uploaded to Dropbox, he experienced the same problem with error messages - but for different aircraft 'slots' this time. As it appears to be different xdp files generating the errors each time the mod is applied, my best guess is that this is caused by corruption to a small number of xdp files when either uploading to or downloading from Dropbox, or during the process of mod application itself (where they overwrite the original xdp files, and there are 869 of them!), but I do not want to release this as a mod if it creates these issues on other peoples systems (and particularly so if JSGME roll-back does not work successfully to clear the problem). If anyone has any thoughts or ideas about this I would be glad of the input - in the meantime I will continue to test it on my system...

B.
Posted By: Becker01

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/09/23 10:28 AM

And for supplement for all, who are interested in:
After I registrated, that I could not role it back to the previous un-modded state with JSGME (getting the same error messages for the same xdp files after roll-back), I copied the aircraft-folder back from a WOFF1.35-backup, I have made a few weeks before, to the real installation and all was okay again on my system.

Maybe at a later time I will try the test-version again, without Albatros, Fokker and Nieuport and will see what happens.

If you want to test it or if you have ideas for it, please contact @Bletchley here or via PM.


Greetings!

Posted By: Polovski

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/10/23 07:52 PM

If you change xdp's, then at runtime bdp's a re created new. If you try to change them all, all bdps will regenerate and this will cause a problem (too many for runtime to deal with).

Contact me PM Bletchley and I'll explain it some and how to change all those.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/11/23 07:41 PM

Ah, OK, thanks Polovski. Will do!

B.
Posted By: Becker01

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/23/23 02:46 PM

Hallo,

at first Thanks to you @Pol, that you have helped @Bletchley. That's not of course!

@Bletchley:
I have tested your new version.

1: With the activation of the full mod I have had the same problem as sbefore (sad!).

2: But the roll-back via jsgme is working now (success!!)! So I have had a base to test, if the mass of the files/data is the reason for the problem.
I don't write every step here but YES, the mass seems to be the deciding factor. And 2 hours later I have had the solution for my system (> 3).

3: I can pack 10 aeroplanes in 1 package of your mod. So I would need 9 parts to activate your full mod. That was too much in my eyes. So I have asked myself: Which aeroplanes do I need? Of course the aeroplanes in the sky of my actual campaign. So I have checked the intel in Campaign, noticed every friendly model in my region (Flandern in this case) via transfer-button and noticed all hostile models via enemy. In addition there are more than ten different aeroplanes. So I did need 2 packages in JSGME with the according aeroplanes of your mod. I activated one package after an other and ... it works.
With progress of the campaign an aeroplane is past one day and an other model is new in the sky. Then I deactivate the accoring mod-part, delete the old aeroplane and copy the new one in this mod-part (from your original mod) and acivate the mod-part again.
Of course that's not optimal but the best manageable solution so far (on my system!) and now I have a base to test your mod.


Greetings!
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/23/23 08:26 PM

Hi Becker, it is great that you have got it up and running (at least in part), but not so good that the mod file that I sent you is still causing problems.

I was hoping that including the associated bdp files with the xdp files would eliminate the problem, as bdp files would no longer need to be regenerated 'on the fly' the first time, but it appears that this is not so. Or perhaps I did something wrong, and misunderstood the instructions that Polovski gave me. I guess it might also be system-dependent, depending to some extent on the processing power of the PC, or perhaps other files are also changed. Packaging the mod into smaller blocks and running those one at a time might be the solution, if it works for you. Once one set has been 'activated' you should be able to then 'activate' the next set without deactivating the previous set, as I think once the bdp files are linked to the associated xdp file they will no longer regenerate (until the xdp is changed again). So, if you have repackaged the mod into batches you should just need to activate the first, start a campaign mission, activate the second, and so on until the mod is fully activated.

B.
Posted By: orbyxP

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/24/23 08:25 AM

I think there is an easier way to do it through JJJ's multimod. If he can confirm/or has time to develop it, that might be a solution.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/24/23 12:10 PM

That would be great orbyxP, if that solved the problem (although I am somewhat loath to put out a mod that can only be loaded via another mod), but I am not sure it would (?). As I understand it, the problem is that the mod changes every aircraft xdp file, and when the game runs after the mod has been loaded the game regenerates every aircraft bdp file 'on the fly' and it is the sheer number of these changes (as ALL aircraft xdp files are changed by the mod, over 800) that causes the run-time error. Either the bdp files in the mod have to exactly match the xdp files, so that the game does not regenerate them, or they have to be loaded in smaller batches so that the player's PC can handle the process. Following instructions from Polovski I though that I had created a set of xdp and bdp files for each aircraft that matched exactly, thus eliminating the problem, but when Becker01 loaded the mod file this didn't seem to work.
Posted By: orbyxP

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/24/23 12:18 PM

The problem is loading the mod through jsgme. I am sure if Becker01 were to backup his aircraft folder, then overwrite the files with your mod, there won't be a problem. Can you send me a link to download the mod and I can test by overwriting my files as an experiment? If that's the case, then only the multimod can solve the problem. Unless OBD were to incorporate the mod, then that would be a permanent solution.
Posted By: Becker01

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/24/23 07:21 PM

Hallo,

@Bletchley,
I forgot to mention that the first error-message from the system was "SignalCrashEventAndWait: dump failed WAIT_object_0+1". This message was new and I haven't had it with the previous mod-versions. The runtime-error was the second message.

@orbyxP,
yes, test it!!! It is not good for this big and specific mod that only one user is testing it. @Bletchley needs more feedback, as @Pol has written on page 2: "Testing is the key - probably easier to test a base set, then extrapolate from there. It would need many missions, and preferably on different PCs, to get a feel of failure rate in sim - even then luck will play a part."

I will wait now for the next steps / results and will fly with the solution, I have written in my last posting: A small version from the EngineFailure-mod via jsgme, only with the actual campaign-relevant aircrafts.


Greetings




Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/24/23 08:40 PM

Sent you the link orbyxP smile
Posted By: Polovski

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/26/23 11:19 AM

Note all have to be on the same patch version for a start, as aircraft models all have to be the same version, exactly the same dates/file sizes etc for each PC.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/27/23 08:54 AM

Thanks Polovski, I have checked and both Becker01 and OrbyxP are patched to 1.35. But I have re-read your advice and I think I may have the answer...

The xdp / bdp combo works on my PC because the bdp files are generated from the xdp files and therefore have a later time stamp, but when anyone else copies these files onto their PC, replacing the existing xdp and bdp files, they copy over together and therefore have the same time stamp applied to both xdp and bdp files (give or take a few seconds). The game software checks the xdp files when the first mission is run, and if the xdp files do not pre-date the bdp files then there is an assumption that the xdp files have been edited since the associated bdp files were generated, and the game therefore attempts to regenerate all those bdp files 'on the fly' (as it does if only the xdp files are copied over). I think I will need to repackage the mod into two 'aircraft' folders, one containing the xdp files (Part A) and the other containing the bdp files (Part B), with instructions to copy over (or activate via JSGME) the one containing the xdp files first (Part A), wait several minutes, and then copy over the one containing the bdp files (Part B). The time stamps for all the bdp files will then be later, on the player's PC, than the xdp files - so that the software, when it checks, will see that everything is then OK and will not try to regenerate the bdp files.

B.
Posted By: Polovski

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/29/23 03:10 PM

Yes exactly is the xdp is newer - or the m3d model, at runtime new bdps will get generated for those aircraft with "newer" files than their bdp.

However, the .XDP and .bdp should not change "modified date" (note this is not the default "date" that windows explorer shows, change file explorer to show modified date) when you copy them in Windows maybe the JSGME tool is changing dates or something. The "Modified Date" is the important one and that would not change. However, there is a tool we made you can use (when you know for a fact the bdps match, the xdps are the same, and the models' m3d is the same as yours only).

They can try to run BDPStamp.exe in the Toolbox, which will set the date to the current time for all bdps.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/29/23 07:57 PM

Ah, OK, thats great, thanks Polovski!

So if Becker01 and orbyxP download and copy in my file containing the paired xdp and bdp files (not using JSGME, but making a backup of the aircraft folder), and then run BDPStamp from the WOFF Toolbox this should square everything up, assuming that we are all on the same patch 1.35 and no one has modified any of the 3D models. When a campaign mission is then started there will be no mass regeneration of bdp files and everything should be OK , assuming that is the problem. Although, of course, as you say, the problem may be caused by JSGME time stamping files so that they can be rolled back.... smile

But splitting the mod into two , Part A with xdp files to be copied over first and Part B with matching post-dated bdp files to be copied over next, should do the same (and may be compatible with JSGME), and this may be easier and more reassuring for people than asking them to also run a utility from the WOFF Toolbox, so I will continue with this as well (and in case the above doesn't work).

Thank you!

B.

At least on my system the mod is working very well. Checking the Mission log I can see when engine failures start and how they progress, and aircraft within the mission area are now clearly drawing their instructions from the modified xdp files in the 'aircraft' folder and not the 'simulation' xdp file. In my last mission there were a total of 7 minor failures in the sector (those that increment very slowly), and only two of those aircraft had to break formation and return to their home field (which they did without crashing) and 2 major failures, one of which resulted in a fatal crash. One of those 'minor' failures was to my own aircraft, half way through the mission, but I managed to complete the mission and return (although the rotary engine was clanking and spitting oil by the time I landed) smile
Posted By: Polovski

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 01/30/23 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Bletchley

So if Becker01 and orbyxP download and copy in my file containing the paired xdp and bdp files (not using JSGME, but making a backup of the aircraft folder), and then run BDPStamp from the WOFF Toolbox this should square everything up, assuming that we are all on the same patch 1.35 and no one has modified any of the 3D models. When a campaign mission is then started there will be no mass regeneration of bdp files and everything should be OK , assuming that is the problem. Although, of course, as you say, the problem may be caused by JSGME time stamping files so that they can be rolled back.... smile


Yes as you say. I can't comment on how JSGME will handle it though.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 02/01/23 05:52 AM

Thanks for taking the time to help with this Polovski.

I think JSGME might be part of the problem,but orbyxP seems to be finding anomalies that aren't related, but puzzling that files that work fine for me don't translate well when applied to other people's systems.

I will have to take a good look at the xdp/bdp combo to see if I have inadvertently introduced some corruption to some of the xdp files.

Becker01 is quiet, so I think he must have got the mod to work by loading just the modified xdp files in small batches and is now test-flying the result smile

B.
Posted By: Polovski

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 02/01/23 07:24 PM

We don't have a problem normally (we do this stuff the way I say to avoid these kinds of glitches) so something is amiss.`

Actually the right way to make them is :


Edit xdps as you like them, run the sim first (edit only a few at a time).

So
Best thing, edit SQD SQ1 of a few aircraft only (backup your whole aircraft folder elsewhere outside of WOFF).

Run WOFF. This generates proper bdps.

Run the cloner to clone all the aircraft. Run the BDPstamp

Then gather your xdps and bdps. Just running the bdpstamp won't work

OK that note I will leave you to it, hands full here..


If you want to only clone a few, then rename aircraft folder first to aircraftXXX make new temporary aircraft folder, copy in the sqd and sq1 of the aircraft needing to be cloned.
Run cloner. Wait a little while (30 sec- 1 min is best) then run BDPStamp.

Copy the new aircraft into aircraftxxx. Delete the temp aircraft folder, rename aircraftxxx back to aircraft. Test.

Rinse repeat with any other sets you do.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 02/01/23 08:35 PM

Thanks Polovski, I really do appreciate the time that you are taking away from WOFF and WOTR development to help with this.

I will go back to the beginning and do it the way you advise!

Thanks,

B.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 02/03/23 06:31 AM

Hi Becker01/OrbyxP and all those who have contributed up to now.

I am going to put my attempt to make this Engine Failure mod by editing the individual aircraft xdp files on hold.

Although I have been able to get it to work on my system, and think that with persistence and following Polovski's advice, I could eventually produce a mod that is easily transferable to other systems, the effort and time required to to do this (and then to do it again, every time a new patch or version of WOFF is released by the developers) is going to make it impractical as a mod. The idea of editing the individual aircraft xdp is, I think, in theory a good one and has several advantages over the alternative one of editing the generic 'simulation' file, but in practice it is likely to be unworkable unless it be done in such a way as to be easy to install and update (and I can't think of any easy way to do the latter, although the former might be possible). The alternative, of making several edited 'simulation' files that can be swapped in and out for different engine types is less satisfactory but more workable, I think, as it is easier to update and less likely to introduce problems, as only one file (in several different versions) needs to be edited and updated rather than 800 plus!

If anyone else wants to have a go and to carry on with this approach based on editing the aircraft xdp files, then I am happy to pass on my folder of 800 plus edited aircraft xdp files!

B.
Posted By: Becker01

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 02/03/23 09:18 PM

Hallo @Bletchley,

yes, I test your mod with the small version I have mentioned above and it works without any issues! I have flown Recon Wars with Aviatik C1 almost 40 missions with default without any EngineFailure. And with your mod I have a disruption with the second mission.
I can only test at the weekend so it will take time for a better feedback (sorry!).

I can understand absolutely your argumentation you have written the posting before. I will fly with the small version from your mod furthermore. But if you have a new idea or an idea with the simulation-file (not specific for every aircraft but more workable) so let me know.

Greetings!

P.S.: I have read your P.M. a few minutes ago, maybe a new step forward.
Posted By: Bletchley

Re: Possible Engine Mod - 02/04/23 06:35 AM

Hi Becker01, thanks, I am glad that you have got it to work on your system (at least a small version).

As expected, installing the latest WOFF patch 1.36 has replaced most of the aircraft xdp files on my system with the standard WOFF aircraft xdp (including the Aviatik C1).

I haven't given up entirely on the idea of a mod that changes the aircraft xdp files, just put it on 'hold' until I can come up with some idea to make updates easier (or until someone else can do the same), and will concentrate for now on a mod that contains a number of 'Simulation' variants for swapping in and out.

B.
© 2024 SimHQ Forums