How about this for a new engine overheat scheme?

[hitech]

Kwessa, wep also includes limited supplies like water injection and nitrious, your sample isn't including those. Other than that your suggestion does have some good points, basicly your saying wep breaks (but not the motor) if used to a limit.
Other than that it always recharges.

HiTech

[EsmeNhaMaire]

Damn, yes, that's where we were getting confused, all right - the difference between the top end of the engines unaided performance, and its performance when artificially boosted by injection of some extra substance into the fuel.

Hmmnn...  due to the fact that we're effectively getting new planes each time we spawn, that might just mean having to treat bomber engine overheat slightly differently to fighter engine overheat, Hitech, so that rogue buffers don't run around on full throttle all day as tends to happen ATM, without overly penalising our fighter friends..

Esme

[bj229r]

How much damage to fluffs actually DO now-a-days that warrants limiting their abiities further? (Aside from dogfiting A20's)

[EsmeNhaMaire]

Thanks to Tilt for causing me to check engine stuff again, and thanks to Hitech and crew for putting in what I would've sworn wasn;t in last time I looked.. - apologies, to the software crew, too, for lack of effect on rate of fuel burn by messing with engine controls is something I've long been critical of.

At lest in the case of the Ju88, you;re quite correct, Tilt!  Doing a couple of quick tests I found that drastically reducing RPM alone makes about a 10% difference, whilst drastically reducing both makes about 25% difference in the length of time the fuel burns.  Mind you, the speed dropped enough that at the settings I chose (at random) I'm not sure the range wouldve been helped, but obviously I need to test further to look into that. Which'll keep me quiet for a while, at least...

Now, if we can just persuade the team to give the AHII Ju88 its proper normal internal fuel tankage, but make it so that if anyone is daft enough to try upping with full fuel AND full bombs that they will find they can barely get off the ground, if at all... :-)

Bj229r, what you;re talking about is MA gameplay, so far as I can see, not what the aircraft could actually do in real life, which is what this thread has to do with.  The MA bears no resemblance at all to what happened and what was effective in RL due to teh differences between MA gameplay and the constraints on aircraft usage in real life. There are a number of issues which impact how effective bombers are in the MA, level speed being the least of them.

Esme

[bj229r]

Roger that, I'm merely saying that buffs (again, with the exeption of dogfiting A-20's) dont need any more 'realism' attached to them in MA...they are quite useless and easy enough to kill enough as it is

[Kweassa]

Good to know there are good points, and it is acknowledged.

 Thank you HT!

[empty]

I see some effort to force the engine/aircraft model to something that may be more realistic; however, I have seen nothing of adding the rest of the controls to the aircraft...

The only aircraft that had 100% automatic control of RPM, Throttle, mixture (to my knowledge) were the FW190s/Ta152s.

All other aircraft had 3-seperate controls per engine.  This would start to clutter up the deskspace.

If we go to a realistic (hmm!) model, we'll need cowl-flap controls, radiator controls, high-blower controls.  These things were operated by the pilot, not the onboard computer.

Some did have an "auto" mode, but they also allow for manual control.

I personally believe the game does a very fine job of mixing approximate realism wiht playability.  It also allows the room for those with the knowledge of things to experiment with trim, rpm, throttle settings to gain advantage over the uninformed.  In your desire for more realistic simulation, keep in mind the new guys that are just starting out.  Flying with a twist-stick and a keyboard, or even a mouse.

It really should be fun for everyone who likes airplanes and flight sims without requiring 600-hours of flight/ground school before getting that first kill.

[Batz]

A common feature of the German fighter engine controls (post ‘42) was the single lever operation (engine and the propeller function to one control lever). The DB, Jumo and BMW systems were different in detail but they controlled the engine and propeller etc…. The pilot basically moved the "Throttle" to adjust the power at all speeds and altitudes. These “automatic” systems adjusted the mixture, ignition timing, supercharger speed, manifold pressure, engine speed (via prop pitch) and even MW50/GM1. Each version of these engines had their own particular set-up and variations.

This “single lever control” concept was shared among the various aircraft manufacturers worldwide and used by all sides. It certainly would not end up with the average AH pilot

requiring 600-hours of flight/ground school before getting that first kill.

The question is would the work required by HTC to model an accurate CEM add anything to game play and fun to the average player. To the geeks it would be great, for the guy who just wants to pop in and blow stuff up he could careless.

As I said above along with any CEM come those who will find fault and complain unless each plane matches the correct power bands. In the A & V forum you can see something as inane as fuel consumption gets beaten to death. It may be a can of worms HT doesn't wish to open.

[Hap]

hey kweassa, how bout tossing a rod out of the cowling or fireall.  hits pilot causing a pilot wound?

or better yet, rod goes thwanging out of cowling and wounds your wingman.