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

[funked]

The problem is that altitude doesn't scale.  Planes that have smaller fuel tanks must spend a disproportionate amount of their fuel load on climbing.  This gives an artificial altitude advantage to the planes with large fuel tanks.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by funked:
The problem is that altitude doesn't scale.  Planes that have smaller fuel tanks must spend a disproportionate amount of their fuel load on climbing.  This gives an artificial altitude advantage to the planes with large fuel tanks.

That is the reason that I ask for a lower setting. 1.5 would be fine with me.  

[Fishu]

Sort of solution for this could be to adjust fuel multiplier by rate of climb..

if plane climbs 3000 feets per minute, fuel multiplier reduces and when going level or diving, fuel multiplier would go to its maximum rate

and that could be refined with some adjustments like if WEP is on, fuel consuming goes with full multiplier amount.
and so on...

well.. just one quickly thought solution to altitude / range problem..  
when you climb, you of course don't advance as fast as you do level or diving, so fuel multiplier could be reduced by rate of climb.

[-lazs-]

I think that the more you lower the ratio the more people will take off with partial tanks.  Very few really care to do long missions and most are only interested in getting to the action and fighting till they run out of ammo.   They scale their fuel level to that.

If the ratio was lower then the U.S. planes would be fighting you with 700-1000 lbs less fuel and we would really see some whining about U.S. planes agility.
lazs

[gatt]

Again its a matter of arena balance. Actually USAF and USNAF planes can take off with 25% or 50% fuel. They can take-off with 25% and external tanks, so they can drop it just before the merge and combat with the minimum possible weight. That reminds me the WarBirds style.

Other a/c like the Yak, the La-5 and the C.205 cannot do that. Can I say that someone can "game the game" and someone cannot?

------------------
GATT
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights
Macchi C.202's sting (1,9MByte film)

[straffo]

 

Originally posted by -lazs-:

If the ratio was lower then the U.S. planes would be fighting you with 700-1000 lbs less fuel and we would really see some whining about U.S. planes agility.
lazs

You need a little explication ... 10 minutes to target 10 minutes fight 10 minutes to rtb ... how can you do that with 22 minutes autonomie ?
And I cannot climb over 10K without an awfull fuel loss (I'm stuck to 7K usually)

And frankly the I don't care about the US whiner ...

[Dusky]

Let's stick to the current fuel stats but... wouldnt small, non-takeoff/hangar refuel fields be nice? That would prevent too much alt hugging and  that would also make it possible for planes with small fuel loads to travel larger distances.

[humble]

Personally I think altitude is an overrated advantage. The Yak/Tiffie are both medium to low alt planes with poor hi alt performance.

Numbers and friendly's/wingman both are more important than alt...just my 2 cents.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by humble:
Personally I think altitude is an overrated advantage. The Yak/Tiffie are both medium to low alt planes with poor hi alt performance.
.

And what about Me109?

 

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by humble:
Personally I think altitude is an overrated advantage. The Yak/Tiffie are both medium to low alt planes with poor hi alt performance.

Numbers and friendly's/wingman both are more important than alt...just my 2 cents.

Altitude advantage in E fighter is somewhat powerful all by itself.
I can bounce over a spit in 190A8 for whole day if I have altitude advantage in initial attack. (now try do that in level engagement or just slightly above)

[Karnak]

To paraphrase Bill Clinton's '92 campaign theme:

"Its the altitude, stupid!"

Sisu
-Karnak

[lazs]

Hmmm.... well, I think that any plane that had drop tanks should have em in the game.   I also think that any short ranged (and short sighted) plane in WWII should remain a short ranged and short sighted plane in AH.   To not have a fuel multiplier means that unless we have fields hours apart then we have a sim where only short ranged intercepters are viable.   In my case at least, I run ourt of ammo around the same time that I am running out of fuel so it all works out.

If we had realistic fuel consumption and distances then the British, german and Russian planes would be relegated to field defence work.   Carriers would be able to park out of range of these planes.    Those kinds of distances would be realistic and bring about realistic results (we have all read the book and know how it turned out) but... Realistic distances and fuel consumption would be boring in the extreme.   Some type of fuel modifier is desirable.

No matter what... U.S. and jap planes are going to have the same range with 25% fuel as say 109's with full tanks.   The U.S. planes would weigh 1300 lbs. or so less with 25% fuel.   If a dash four Hog came out it would be the best climbing plane in the game at 25% fuel.
lazs

[funked]

"If we had realistic fuel consumption and distances then the British, german and Russian planes would be relegated to field defence work."

That's crap Lazs.  RAF, Luftwaffe and VVS fighters were all heavily engaged over the battlefield in tactical roles.  They were most definitely not used for field defense only.

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by lazs:
British, german and Russian planes would be relegated to field defence work.   Carriers would be able to park out of range of these planes.    Those kinds of distances would be realistic and bring about realistic results

Another piece of pro-US propaganda directly from Lazs

 

[humble]

I had 2-3 encounters with High 109's and chogs over the weekend...minimum 5k alt adv. All went to the deck and only ended with the arrival of additional bogies. I'm not saying alt doesn't matter...it does...but it's only one part of the equation.