Originally posted by Batz
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.
I would agree with this but find in pyro's excellent posts some evidence that it may not be a solution alone for all AC.
Actually on VVS ac (barring the yak9U) it was not the throttle but the rpm control that would have the 110% setting. By increasing rpm to its WEP setting the boost was enhanced to give a higher manifold pressure.
Looking at VVS ac there was no "wire". Pilots were taught a crude form of constant engine management which meant they were always concerned with engine temperature,rpm and manifold pressure. Adjusting (in the main) rpm and throttle to set boost
whilst playing with two sets of engine air flow controls and mixture settings.
I fully agree with all above that the two latter are not required here.......they have no real
consequence other than extra work.
The new rpm/throttle > range model does have a consequence (range/endurance modification) and I for one welcome it greatly.
Hence breaking the wire may be the same as pressing a button but only for those ac that had such wires.
Back to (rpm generated) WEP. In fact still using the button to generate the extra rpm denies the
consequence (or assures it depending upon view point) it locks the ac into WEP mode until the WEP button is unlatched. Reducing rpm does not disengage WEP it cannot be reduced until WEP is unlatched.(or the throttle setting changed)
( I have now assumed this is not a bug)
So why keep the WEP button for rpm generated WEP?
Well the great majority of players do not have extra wheels on their sticks...........they fly MS PP's and rely upon the +/_ keys for rpm which would be fumbled over mid combat. We can see that getting rid of the button may penalise the enjoyment of such players.
Its a tight call.........having practiced with the +/- I tend to think it very doable, but I can well understand HTC deciding that removing a function that players are used to would be a backward step
However for those of us that have the rotaries I would ask that rpm have a 110% range and that using it would induce rpm generated WEP reducing rpm will kill WEP just as reducing throttle does now. Ie WEP becomes a true function of manifold pressure.
The button could then be retained as "auto WEP" much as we have many other automated functions. For those AC where the WEP is an additive it would still be used anyway. Further the additive would even be added when throttle and rpm were reduced and only switched off when unlatched.
If some AC used 110% throttle then this should be available similarly.
Basically thottles and rpm would then both have a 0 to 110% band and the FM would make the extra 10% available when it suited the engine model HTC wished to use.
On a Yak9U neither of the two extra 10% bands would be effective. They would be dead zones.
On an La7 the throttle 10% would be redundant but the 10%rpm band (in fact only 4% of it) would be used to induce and reduce WEP.
If P51's and Spits actually increased throttle to gain WEP then this 10% would be used.
When the WEP button is used the two settings must be at at least 100% and will then seem to jump according to the AC model concerned. Any adjustment of those settings will cause the WEP to dissapear, unless it is to actually increase rpm or throttle into the WEP zone, and unless we are modelling an additive which will just give additional power to what ever setting is in residence.
This will give fidelity of control.
This will not (IMO) reduce play options. (to those dependant on the button)
This will allow a pilot with additive injection to use it for range and not just power.
The next debate is how to limit WEP.
Well it would work as now off the engine temperature. There is no limit to WEP other than the time it takes the engine to cycle above and below its highest permitable running setting and the resultant periods where WEP cannot(should not) be engaged.
For additive it is also limited due to a fixed quantity available.......it can be timed.........although would it really be used at the same rate when other settings have been reduced to give a lower manifiold pressure?
Should a damage/penalty model be added?
It seems that a penalty can be added without incurring "end of ride damage". From a thread elsewhere we see that WEP could generate a sort of thermal inertia which effects the cooling period of the engine.
The idea is that when WEP is disengaged the temperature continues to rise for a period prior to starting to cool. Further the amount of subsequent rise is a function of the temperature at which WEP was disengaged.
eg if the temp red line was at 220F. WEP is not available over 240F
Switching WEP off at 220F may incurr no subsequent thermal inertia and the engine would start to cool to a nominal 180F.
Switching WEP off at 230F may incurr a period where the engine continues to heat up to 235F where after it cools.
Switching WEP off at 240F may incurr a period where the engine continues to heat up to 250 where after it continues to cool.
A pilot using WEP re lentlessly would (eventually) suffer a period where the engine heated and cooled thru 20 degrees (+10 > -10)then after a few seconds of WEP have the same wait again.
A pilot using WEP sparingly and maintaining a lower engine temperature would have more access to WEP.
To this we could go further and add the modeling of differing temperature rise rates and cooling rates under differing conditions as keawessa suggested above.
Would such a penalty system /heating and cooling model actually add to the game? I am not sure........... most folk would not even understand the subtlty of the system IMO.
