Feature Request please HT - engine management

[Mister Fork]

Pyro and all..

Perhaps a solution should be simple one?

• Running the engine at 100% moves up the heat gauge a certain rate (5° every minute).
• When you get close to critical temperature, you get a heat light flashing in your cockpit.
• When the engine runs at critical temperature for more than one minute, a buzzer goes off.
• After minute two at critical, damage to your engine oil cooler.
• After minute five at critical temperature, damage to the radiator.
• Less manifold or less RPM's means your engine runs cooler.  
• There's a sweet spot setting for maintaining a balance of engine heat and performance.
• Regardless if you're using WEP or 100%, running your engine at maximum performance increases engine heat.
• Going into a battle with a cooler engine means you have longer to work your engine heat up.
• A player has ample warning that he's pushing the engine too hard and is able to simply keep himself in the game by backing off.

Thoughts?

[ergRTC]

The problem with that, fork, is that it is not realistic.  The issue here is that engines could survive at 100% throttle (I guess) for a long period.  If we assume that is the case, which according to the powers that know more than me, it is, than there can be no penalty for 100% throttle other than fuel consumption.

In the MA the bases are so close together, that this is hardly an issue, and beyond that, it would only negatively affect the guys flying up high, and not the conga line furballers.  Buttttttttttttt that is neither here nor there, cause if that is where you are playing then this kind of realism doesn really matter I guess.

What a problem.

[Pyro]

Mr. Fork, I get the feeling that you only skimmed through this thread and didn't read it in its entirety because what you suggest is pretty much the basis of this thread and has been a point of argument.  If you disagree with me, I have no problem with that, but present some counterpoints and references to mine instead of ignoring them.  Instead, you've just kind of rehashed some suggestions without giving a basis for why you think they're good and have ignored the counterpoints.  For me to point out anything wrong with your suggestion is to just cut and paste my previous posts until they are addressed.

[Kweassa]

Not even the planes in Il2/FB overheat at 100% throttle.

 It may overheat when it's a hot, summer map, and you very often run the plane at very slow speeds at low altitudes(which disrupts the airflow in many planes, which drags down the cooling efficiency and causes some planes to overheat at military power). But overheating issues aren't a real problem anymore if you are using military power.

 ...

 Ofcourse, that doesn't mean FB is the same as AH.

 The key difference with IL2/FB, is the WEP endurance factor.

 Whether you have WEP or not immediately effects the performance greatly, and not being able to use WEP when your opponent can, is a tremendous disadvantage. So naturally, you want to save your plane so it can use WEP for a long time when its really needed.

  In AH, you can engage WEP for a set time duration. That time does not increase or decrease upon the attitude of flight or throttle management. That means, whether you are climbing or flying level, you can use WEP for X amount of minutes solidly.

 However, it's not like that in FB:
* If you engage WEP during a climb, it overheats more quickly.
* If you engage WEP during a low alt furball with lots of slow speed maneuvering, it overheats more quickly.
* If you have kept your plane running at 100% throttle for a long time, and then you engage WEP, it overheats more quickly.

 If you have refrained from using full military power all the time, and tried to keep the engine warm and steady, in that case the WEP does not overheat the engine quickly. In other words, the engine temperatures are effected by various factors.

 In AH, it's different. You know exactly how long you can use WEP. Thus, you have no reason to refrain from using 100% throttle all the time. Nothing makes the engine overheat quicker or slower.

 ..

 Its just comes down to how many variable are available for the gamer to consider. AH has less variables, which tempts the players to firewall his throttle at 100% all the time.

 On the other hand, FB has too many variables which I cannot understand. Sometimes my WEP will endure for full 10 minutes, other times, it'll start overheating after 2 minutes on the same plane.

 This forces the player to do everything safely - fly at about 80~85% throttle most of the times, and go upto 100% only when engaging an enemy. And, engaging WEP when its only really necessary.
 
(However, I personally think that FB has failed to depict the many variables which shows any kind of consistency.

 In nature/real life, even with uncountable number of variables, the results are produced in a natural balance and equilibrium of things. In simulated environments, more variables seem to always draw out more inconsistency.

 This problem is visible in FB - things like overheating, or damage modelling, keeps bringing up complaints from the gamers on inconsistency.)

 ...

[Sox62]

I have no problem adjusting manifold and rpm to conserve fuel.If I find myself devoting more time to gauges than to flying and fighting,I'll have to decide whether or not this is a fun game,or a "sim",and worth paying a monthly fee.

Why some are so worried about realistic manifold pressures,wep,overheating eludes me.This is a FIGHTING game.

[Batz]

In FB I suspect the way the engine overheats is a method to keep the planes within time limits @ power.

In my suggestion above I was think along those lines as well. Even now Ah we have time limits for wep, predefined "cool down periods" etc...

Trading one "not so realistic compromise" for another isn't much of an improvement.

I do think that re-doing the throttle to max 110% and placing stuff like mw50, adi, c3 on the "WEP" button would be an improvement.

[Crumpp]

I agree Batz.  Your 110 percent throttle suggestion looks like a good compromise IMO.
The exhaust graphics is a great addition too. I read were that was very visible.

Crumpp

[ergRTC]

sox, this affects the game quite a bit if you are interested in the tactics used by pilots in ww2 to fight these planes.  

There was a great interview with a russian ace on here not long ago, where he discussed the curtis hawk, and the p39 (among others).  I am sure all of us were thinking, how in the hell did that guy fight 109s in those clunky old slow poss'.  He responded by saying, sure the 109 'could' go much faster, but in combat rarely did he find them with much of a speed advantage.  It just wasnt an issue.

In here it is a very big issue.  In a bob scenario, if you are flying a 109 you keep that thing at its top speed all the time, no matter what.

[Mister Fork]

You're partly right Pyro; all I did was skim through the last few messages on Engine Management (EM).

Am I correct Pyro that you’re thinking on EM isn't about how long you can last at 100% throttle with WEP in combat without effecting performance; it's about giving the pilot the ability to prolong their flying?   (Any argument about engine heat or running at 110%(sorry Batz) is extraneous to EM. )

In addition, if you decide to run your plane flat out on the deck, you'll get the worst fuel economy.  Instead of having your La-7 or Spit IX flying around for 30-40 minutes furballing it out, you'll have around 15 minutes of fuel or less.  By better managing the engine RPM's and MP and fly at higher altitudes, fuel economy will drastically increase allowing you to fly and engage your opponent(s) on a more realistic level.

That sounds like a really simple way to incorporate EM without worrying about how long your engine will last at max performance. It's about how long you can keep going without running out of fuel.  

Arena strategy could focus on fuel - the way it really was in WWII.   A lot of good unit positions and supply lines will do if you don't have the fuel to move your army, airforce, and Navy.

[Pyro]

You got it Mr. Fork.  

One note though.  You're going to see fuel consumption increase as you go up in alt until you hit critical alt.  But that doesn't mean that staying at sea level is best since your speed is lower.  

To show you how big of an effect this can have, I'll give you an example.  A P-51D flying at 10k at military power (61" 3000 RPM) will do around 400 mph and be using around 180 GPH.  By backing down to normal power(46" 2700 RPM), speed drops to around 360 and fuel consumption drops to 98 GPH.  So in this example, by reducing your speed 10%, you were able to reduce your consumption by 45%.  Those consumption rates are with no fuel burn multiplier.  By bumping that up, we can effectively require pilots to do some engine management at least some of the time.

In the real world, a pilot entering combat may be worried about whether he has enough gas.  In the sim world, the pilot may be worried about whether he has too much gas.  It's pretty backwards, fuel should play a bigger role.

[ergRTC]

Wow, thanks for the example pyro, that is something that I was wondering about.  I have never bothered researching actual consumption rates, but that is incredible.

You are right about too much fuel, of course that is for situations like the MA, where the return trip is entirely optional.  In our squad ops, the biggest deal is seeing all of the guys make it home.  And in the TOD I am sure that will be much more important as well.  

An interesting balance between enough energy to have the advantage but enough fuel to make it home.  OHHH THE JOY!!!!

[Batz]

Originally posted by Mister Fork
You're partly right Pyro; all I did was skim through the last few messages on Engine Management (EM).

Am I correct Pyro that you’re thinking on EM isn't about how long you can last at 100% throttle with WEP in combat without effecting performance; it's about giving the pilot the ability to prolong their flying?   (Any argument about engine heat or running at 110%(sorry Batz) is extraneous to EM. )

In addition, if you decide to run your plane flat out on the deck, you'll get the worst fuel economy.  Instead of having your La-7 or Spit IX flying around for 30-40 minutes furballing it out, you'll have around 15 minutes of fuel or less.  By better managing the engine RPM's and MP and fly at higher altitudes, fuel economy will drastically increase allowing you to fly and engage your opponent(s) on a more realistic level.

That sounds like a really simple way to incorporate EM without worrying about how long your engine will last at max performance. It's about how long you can keep going without running out of fuel.  

Arena strategy could focus on fuel - the way it really was in WWII.   A lot of good unit positions and supply lines will do if you don't have the fuel to move your army, airforce, and Navy.

Yeah I "got it" after Pyro's first post. My "overheat"scheme was more a tool to force folks to fly within power / time ratings. Basically limiting the amount of time on max power". I hadn't realized that the new fuel consumption model does this very thing.

Still I belive the 110% throttle even with out the "overheat" would be better then 100% and a wep button.

[Crumpp]

I don't know that the "fuel consumption" will make people fly within their engine limits.  I think they will just take off closer to the action or carry more fuel.

This might be important IF "Tour of Duty" is enacted an you must fly missions to specific locations.   For the MA I will be surprised if this works.

The overheat deal while unrealistic for the engine is realistic in forcing the pilot to use real throttle settings and to watch it during combat.

Crumpp

[HoHun]

Hi Pyro,

>It is often asked what the consequences will be if the 5-minute limit at Take-off Power is exceeded. Another frequent inquiry is how long a period must be allowed after the specified time limit has elapsed until Take-off Power can be used. These questions are difficult to answer, since the time limit specified does not mean that engine damage will occur if the limit is exceeded.

Excellent quote! :-)

>Those consumption rates are with no fuel burn multiplier. By bumping that up, we can effectively require pilots to do some engine management at least some of the time.

Nevertheless, I believe bumping up the fuel multiplier is not a good idea.

The maps are small. OK, so fields are 20 km apart instead of 100 km, but 10 km altitude remain 10 km altitude even if I consume 5 times as much fuel to go up to that altitude.

And going up doesn't get much more economic if you pull back power - in fact, looking at a Tempest V diagram, I note that it's more efficient to climb to high altitude flat-out. Throttling back will actually mean more gallons burnt.

Let's look at an example: Spitfire F. XIV.

At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 25000 ft: -26 gals
Cruise out: -15.5 gals
5 min combat power: -15 gals
10 min climb power: -22 gals
Climb from 10000 ft to 20000 ft: -6 gals
Cruise back: -15.5 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals

The 15.5 gals for cruise each way yield a combat radius of 73 miles.

The same mission with a consumption multiplier of 1.5 would be impossible. If you'd give up the 11 gals reserve, you'd have a remaining combat radius of 18 miles.

Now a less demanding mission profile:

At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 20000 ft: -23 gals
Cruise out: -20 gals
5 min combat power: -15 gals
10 min climb power: -22 gals
Cruise back without climb: -20 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals

Combat radius: 94 miles.

With a fuel multiplier of 1.5:

At take-off: 111 gals
Start, taxy, take-off, climb to 20000 ft: -34.5 gals
Cruise out: -5 gals
5 min combat power: -22.5 gals
10 min climb power: -33 gals
Cruise back without climb: -5 gals
10% reserve: -11 gals

This would leave the Spitfire with just 10 gals for cruise (5 in, 5 out), equating a combat radius of 16 miles at the higher fuel multiplier - though the 10% reserve is worth less, too.

And looking at the mission profile - who could hope to survive a maximum economy cruise back from a furball? :-) The Spitfire actually has no choice but either to run away at full throttle (might work for a XIV), or to climb above all bandits in the area before going to maximum economy.

In my opinion, the fuel multiplier is not a good solution for our problem.

As a constructive contribution, I'd rather subtract x gallons from the fuel tank each time someone crosses a map grid line :-)

That's not as silly as it may appear at first - it treats distance different from altitude and combat time, something a fuel multiplier can't do.

The Spitfire XIV as point-defense fighter will be able to perform in that role without artificial limitation. The P-51 on the other hand will make a great long-range fighter - not only will it be able to reach far, but it will also be able to spend a realistic amount of combat time over the target without running dry.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Pyro
In the real world, a pilot entering combat may be worried about whether he has enough gas.  In the sim world, the pilot may be worried about whether he has too much gas.  It's pretty backwards, fuel should play a bigger role.

Defensively, running out of fuel is far less of an issue when you can glide down and land in friendly territory. Offensively, pilots should be sweating about fuel consumption. However, since so many guys have no intention of surviving, they take only enough to get them to the target. Until a real motivation for survival is in place, fuel management will be an issue only for those players for whom landing a sortie is important.

In short, I'm concerned that fuel management will have no effect upon the suicide horde, but adversely impact the players who want to return intact.

My regards,

Widewing