Fuel Multiplier.. is it neccesary? Why? Why not?

[SKurj]

Do we really need the multiplier as it stands right now in the MA?

What do you think?
Why do we need it as is?
Do we need it changed?
What setting makes more sense to you?

Personally I think the multiplier is too high with the sfterrain.  1.5 to 2x would make me happy.  I think often the fuel multiplier narrows down the plane choices available.

SKurj

[RAM]

I think that it is set to a very high rate-someone told me that was 2.7 or something like that.

I think 1.5-2 would be fine, IMO. right now there are some planes hat have risible endurance in MA.

[straffo]

It's so high to pork the Yak and the Typhoon
...  
So the American iron seems good ...

BTW DROP TANK for the typhoon   !

yes it's a WHINE !

[This message has been edited by straffo (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Dowding]

I checked fuel multiplyer in MA recently and I'm sure it was 1.0.
 

[MRPLUTO]

I had heard that main arena fuel multiplier was 2.5X so I asked the other night and someone who's name escapes me said it was.  This was someone who knows what's going on.  
I have looked at the arena settings, and it does say 1.0X, but fuel consumption must be much higher judging by how fast it gets gulped down.

I agree that it should be lower than what it is.

/S/ MRPLUTO  

------------------

[Replicant]

I'm sure MA is 2.5

Regards

'Nexx'

[Fishu]

Dowding, try look other settings next time  
it doesn't seem to tell all those settings.. if any.

I must agree with Straffo, it ruins many planes that has no drop tanks or otherwise small tanks and one drop tank, while all US planes has at least two drop tanks and huge internal fuel..
If we ever go to the jets, we won't be seeing them being too effective in MA, because they run out of fuel when you get enough altitude and then you also can't stay in a fight or prop fighters will slaughter you for sure.

La-5 and Yak gets real downgrade with this  

Tiffie has no drop tanks or Spitfire V.. I wonder where those have been forgot.
I've seen them sending pictures of typhoon with drop tanks long time ago and I've been looking Spitfire datasheets where they say that Spitfire Mk.V had drop tanks like IX.

I once made Ju-88 ride at 19,500ft, gee.. did it take long to climb there with 100% fuel and all the possible eggs that I could have..
After the mission I had two tanks with 25% gas left when I checked it on the runway. (about 75 miles was used for climbing and that was just from a field 30 miles apart from target field)

I can say that fuel multiplier should be reduced or removed because of some planes that has low fuel.

[Thog]

If you're all so keen to duplicate WWII 'realism' in the flight model, you should be prepared to deal with things like fuelload.  It does in fact have a major effect on tactics and stratigy.  After all, not many people argue that AH should alter ammo loadouts to allow for longer dogfights because the Yak has a small clip.  Yes it narrows the choices, but it does so for very historical reasons.

You can't extend the flight time (distance), so you have to approach it from the fuel expendature angle.  And it works.

Agreed on droptanks; if they were used, they should exist.

Thog

(ps; sorry for the tone.  Skurj didn't phrase this as a whine at all (his question/opinion was well stated), but I do get tired of contraditory rants about historical inaccuracy and then rants about the inclusion of a historical feature or unit (fuel, vehicals in general, some planes being better than others no matter how cool you think the 'other' is) because it's inconvienanced someone.)

[Ghosth]

OK to answer the original question. Yes it's necessary for now.Once we have a 1:1 scale historical map in main we can do without the fuel modifier.

Current maps are 2:1 (SEA MED 2.5:1)so in order to keep things to historic ranges a multiplier is needed. Of course most fields will be a LOT farther apart (if based on any historical terrain) hence it really won't make much difference either way.

Yes the Yak & the La5 have short legs. Both came from the russian front where the action was close. Hence no need for extended fuel tanks & 500 mile range.

Unless of course you think you'd like all planes rolling with 25% fuel & flying clean across the map.

As for exactly what the Fuel multi is in main, I'm a CM & even I can't find that out.
Ask HT maybe he'll tell you, maybe he won't.

 

[humble]

I fly the yak and tiffie almost exclusively and really don't see much problem with fuel in either...now I only climb to about 15k max. I'll usually look for a 1-2 sector hop with decent action. Now, I don't usually have to worry bout return trip of course  

[Hans]

I am pro-fuel multiplier.

If a fighter is a short range fighter, then thats that.  Its just one of the things you have to consider.

Hans.

[Fishu]

My most concern with this is not the range, but the altitude..
Some runstanger can climb dive climb dive... constantly because of his great fuel load, but like La5 and few others can go just couple of times back to higher altitudes..

Now, if we ever get jets, this would really cut off those
I think same goes with Ta-152, which is high altitude fighter, but I doubt it had the fuel capacity of P-51  

[Gadfly]

If the problem is the same as in Warbirds(and it is), then you get unrealistic effects because even though the terrain is scaled 1 to 2 or whatever, the altitude is not.  It hurts the planes with small tanks a lot more than it should.  Can't be compared to ammo, because ammo is not dependant upon scaling.

[flakbait]

Here's my take on this. Aircraft like the 202 and 205 are horribly short-legged in the MA. It takes nearly a quarter tank just to takeoff in one. By contrast, the P-47 with full fuel can nearly roam the entire map. Until we see performance pages, like the F4U has, we'll be stuck. We don't know what settings to put the 109, 202, or Typhoon at. I know the F4U settings are like finding gold. I made a single drop tank last from A9 to A7 and BACK using those settings. Plus I still had 10 gallons left in the tank.

If the fuel burn isn't messed with, then the performance pages for every aircraft should be finished. We can't save fuel, and stretch out to hit an enemy target, if we don't know what settings are used. Right now we're using the brute force approach; full throttle all the way. Need more gas? Grab drop tanks. With something like the Typhoon or 205, we NEED those cruise settings. Or we're stuck using them as one-shot defense planes.




------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

[SKurj]

well as an addition to this, if the map distances are scaled down then surely for "accuracy" should altitude be scaled down?  Sure these AC don't have to fly as far, but they still have to climb as high or higher.  SO they burn 2.5x more fuel than in RL just to get to the same alt.  I don't think a drastic reduction is called for.  This is a late war plane set, the luftwaffe didn't have to fly far to find a fight (yet in MA they have to)  the aircraft didn't need long range capabilities.  
If the roles were reversed i'd imagine we'd see some form of the mustang with a tiny fuel tank too, because it wasn't needed to travel 1000 miles or more!!  This fuel issue to me makes no sense outside of a HA or scenario.
With the beta map fuel was rarely a problem, with sfterr it can be.

SKurj