Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?

[straffo]

I've three answers :

1 - The P51 and no advantage over the 109 or the spit. just because it's an escorter not an interceptor.
Each one is good in his domain and each one is a nice fighter.

2 - uh ? it pass right over my head

3 - imagine an airbase with p51 and Typhoon

The mecanic give 25% fuel to each and make them pay.
Will be you pleased to pay for 46 gallon the the same amount when your p51 friend got 64

4 - I can't count but you didn't read that thread.

The bottom line is that the P-51D had the historic advantage. Turing that into a disadvantage for gameplay reasons is "Gamey".

Was the historical p51 operating in an arena having a fuel multiplier  ?

[F4UDOA]

Batz,

The p51 pilot can fly around in the main until he burns some fuel off, just like they did in rl...

I am not aware of pilots flying around aimlessly in real life to get rid of fuel unless he was preparing to crash land. The more realistic solution would be to takeoff with less fuel if he knew he wouldn't need it.

The guy with more fuel can decide for himself when he wants to fight, his combat time isnt adversly impacted by a fuel mod. A yak cant cram more gas in, but a 51 can fly around and burn it off.

See the difference there? Its up to the 51 piltot to decide when he wants to engage....

And that is exactly what is happening in AH2 when the Pony has 25% and the Yak has 25%. The Pony can decide when to engage and disengage. It is realistic.

Also the main is "gamey" after all its a "game". WW2 isnt being fought in the main....

Yes, but the flight models should not be gamey. Otherwise the MA becomes FA.

Time to alt is a factor as well, a 109, spit etc burn more fuel with a fuel mod to get to alt... Planes with a large fuel capacity don't suffer to the same degree....

That's true, however the fuel multplier makes up the differance for the fields being so close. It also forces Spit, 109 and Yak pilots to use engine management that they would use in combat. The F4U-4 burns fuel like crazy and has one of the shortest durations in the game of 21 minutes. But I know I can get to 20K with 25% fuel and still have 75% left for combat. I can either reduce power or carry DT's. Spits and 109's can do the same.  

Gsholz,

Even when flying from bases in France the Ponies would be fully fueled up (perhaps with the exception of the aux tank). I don't think ANY fighter took off without a full tank of gas.

I can show otherwise. Besides it's not the takeoff weight that matters. What weight was it when it engaged in combat. Not 10,100LBS fully loaded.

The point that is being discussed (on the P-51) is that it is extremely "gamey" to bring DTs along while not having a full internal tank. In the MA the Pony driver should of course be allowed to bring less fuel along, as should anyone, but not with DT's.

I would agree with not having any DT's allowed with less than a full tank. But for all A/C not just the P-51.

[GScholz]

Of course, the rules should be the same for every aircraft. Like I said, I don't think ANY fighter took off with less than a full tank in WWII.

[straffo]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
And that is exactly what is happening in AH2 when the Pony has 25% and the Yak has 25%. The Pony can decide when to engage and disengage. It is realistic.

No it's not realistic when the p51 got 64 gallon and the Yak got 35.
In this case the short range fighter become a no-range fighter...
Why ?
But it's solved because as said Pyro the fuel porking we know in AH1 will be gone in AH2.

I would agree with not having any DT's allowed with less than a full tank. But for all A/C not just the P-51. [/B]

Situation is not hopeless, we agree on this point

[F4UDOA]

Straffo,

1 - The P51 and no advantage over the 109 or the spit. just because it's an escorter not an interceptor.
Each one is good in his domain and each one is a nice fighter.

The advantage the Pony had was descibed as "It won't do what the Spitfire will do but it will do it over Germany" by some unknown fighterpilot.

3 - imagine an airbase with p51 and Typhoon

The mecanic give 25% fuel to each and make them pay.
Will be you pleased to pay for 46 gallon the the same amount when your p51 friend got 64

The only pilot who would be upset is the Tiffy pilot. A pony can fly a long way on 25% fuel. A Tiffy won't make it far past the runway.

Was the historical p51 operating in an arena having a fuel multiplier ?

Yeah but the bases were much farther apart. All the fuel multplier does is simulate the bases being far apart without having to fly for hours.

In reality the fuel multiplier should be much higher than it is to simulate the reduced distance.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
The only pilot who would be upset is the Tiffy pilot. A pony can fly a long way on 25% fuel. A Tiffy won't make it far past the runway.

Which is exactly why using a fuel % is unfair and increases the detrimental effect of fuel porking in the MA. Every "pilot" should be given an equal amount of fuel (up to full tank obviously) no matter what plane he flies.

If you had a Pony and a Spit on the same airfield and needed to launch both to defend the airfield, and only had 100 gallons of fuel available, you'd put 50 in each. Not 80 in the Pony and 20 in the Spit.

[Tilt]

re the move to limit fuel porkage we can only say thanks...........

It still does not IMHO address FBM issues  (@FBM 2 x) for short legged AC and their max time in combat being artificially shortened.......

I still think my original points stand..........

I totally agree with F4Udoa.......i dont see why AC should be forced to take up a max fuel level.....it should be player selectable.........

re attrition

I still think that less thirsty ac should benefit under the attrition model.........

I realise that its a big code change and something for the future......... and there is more than one way to do it.

One way could be to have a mix of fuel supply types

Silo = 10 fuel units (big circular thing we see in towns now)

Tank = 5 fuel units (the old fuel cell or one of the cylinders we see now)

Drum = 1 fuel unit (the old small fuel drum.....very difficult to see)


Large fields 60 fuel units ( 2 silos, 4 tanks, 20 Drums)

Medium fields 40 fuel units (1 Silos, 3 tanks, 15 Drums)

Small fields 20 fuel units (2 tanks, 10 drums)

Every field has a theoretically indestructable drum.......... (or maybe 2!)

Each fuel unit makes 50 gals available to a ride loading fuel.

[straffo]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Straffo,
The advantage the Pony had was descibed as "It won't do what the Spitfire will do but it will do it over Germany" by some unknown fighterpilot.

Hahem... I want to see a fight between a SpitXIV and a P51 with equal pilots and the very same amount of fuel.
I won't bet any money on the P51.

The only pilot who would be upset is the Tiffy pilot. A pony can fly a long way on 25% fuel. A Tiffy won't make it far past the runway.

I'm upset since about 4 years !
This discussion already took place years ago.

What piss me is the delta between the 25% of the P51 and the 25% of the Typhoon : if he can have 64 gallon for 25% I WANT 64 Gallon for 25% TOO.

Is that so difficult to understand ?

Yeah but the bases were much farther apart. All the fuel multplier does is simulate the bases being far apart without having to fly for hours.

In reality the fuel multiplier should be much higher than it is to simulate the reduced distance.

It simulate NOTHING related to distance the altitude is not reduced ,and we are not in a flat world.

If you want to set a historical mutiplier what about using 10 ?
With such a mutiplier I B17 will have to take off at full fuel just to bomb the nearest base.
I will be very representative of the bombing of Germany.

To bad your p51 won't be able to RTB in this case.

[Edbert]

Originally posted by Pyro
Yeah, we are going to limit the amount of fuel porkage that can be inflicted on a base.  No DT's and 75% fuel will be the most that fuel supplies will be limited to.

Woohoo! I really do love these guys, there's a reason I've been paying to play their sims since 1996 alright

[Replicant]

My problem with the x2 burn rate is that the Typhoon needs 100% to fly anywhere.  Most other planes don't need 100% and that's the difference.  Other planes that are thirsty are proper fighters (i.e. fly without bombs), whereas the Tyhoon is primarily a jabo - it's not worth testing the Typhoon light, it has to be tested heavy which it was designed for.  It's going to be very boring taking off, climbing, drop bombs and RTB without any engagements.  Guess we're talking of a 75 mile round trip if heavy and climbing to a suitable altitude.

Pyro, could you please confirm that the x2 burn rate will apply to the TOD and Classic versions of AH2?  I can live with it if it's the TOD but the Classic is more like the MA since that isn't an allied/axis arena it's irrelevent whether things are historical or not.

[GODO]

Originally posted by straffo
It simulate NOTHING related to distance the altitude is not reduced ,and we are not in a flat world.

That's the point. Increasing fuel multiplier has a direct impact on that. And we will still be hitting mostly the inmediate enemy base near ours, doesnt matter the plane (P51, La7 ...), each one flying his prefered ride. P51 pilots will keep using their fuel advantage to climb to 30k, but they will be striking the very same base than others flying C205 or whatever else, that is, the closer base. Actually, long range planes are very rarely used as long range planes.

IMO, any fuel mult used should ensure that any player can jump into his favorite ride, climb to 20k, engange for no less than 10 mins and RTB.

As a matter of fact, increasing fuel burn mult is mainly striking the player's fun time. Times needed to travel to the fight area and to rtb from fight area remain the same, fun time will be reduced or increased depending on fuel burn rate.

[Pyro]

Actually, the fuel burn mult for ToD should be less since the distances will be greater.

[Karnak]

Pyro, F4UDOA,

I wasn't saying that the P-51 would be better off than the Spit IX or Bf109G-10 as I don't think it would be.  I think that it would be closer to even than it should be in that scenario.

That is a scenario in which the short range fighters should really shine, and allowing the long range fighters to take off with 25%+DTs mitigates that advantage to some degree.

The FBM gives the long range fighters their proper advantage of range and the inproper advantage of altitude.

Requiring 100% fuel before taking DTs would help keep the short ranged fighter's proper degree of advantage when fighting.

[flaps737]

the performance advantage of 25% fuel vs 100% is so small its nearly invisible.  I never take less than 100% and I've never felt at a disadvantage for it in airplanes that supposedly only "need" 25% and a DT.  forcing people to take 100% fuel with a drop tank is not going to increase your score any over p51's, p38's or any of the other airplanes that supposedly do it.  If your spit can't turn with a p51 it has nothing to do with fuel load, its your piloting technique (e.g. you cant out-turn a 51 at high speeds in a spitfire).  if two airplanes of the same model meet with different fuel loads, and the pilots are relatively equal, then there might be a performance argument.  but since they're the same type of airplane, its a non-issue.  I like the gallons of fuel available at a field rather than percentage, good idea there.

[TweetyBird]

I kinda agree with flaps737. Most kills in the MA are just kills of opportunity. Flying arround with a 100% fuel in p51 and picking off the stupid ones (i.e., occupied, low e, otherwise disadvantageous position)  seems a good plan. There should be more targets for that type of flying since most *performance* type flyers will be out of gas. The point where no fuel begins to negate any perforance advantage will occur much sooner. You get into mesoscale forecasting (high resolution) or planning. Since the performance window is so small, for it to be effective you would have to know exactly where you would find the fight. Otherwise, you would just miss the window where performance outwieghts no lateral e A slower burn rate would put more emphasis on performance as its useful area would be larger making predictions of fights need to be less precise.

Easy way to see this is use the extremes. With a 4x burnrate, people flying planes with short legs would forget about performance, as it would be impossible to maintain the state for any useful time (in most cases). With a burn rate of .25 people would be figuring their loadout to the gallon as they could maintain an optimum state for a long time.

Take it further to the extreme with a 15x burn rate. Fights would fall to a matter of luck or having any fuel. With a .000001 burn rate, anyone taking over a gallon (ounce?) of fuel would be a fool, as it would be all about performance.

There is a definite trend that shows the faster the burn rate, the less important matter of performance becomes, and the MORE important luck becomes.

The faster the fuel burn, the shorter the period of optimum performance and the less useful it is in strategy.

Here's a brainstorm. How about making the rate 1.
Although the idea of having fuel maintain a mnimum level of 75% seem great, does it matter if the game plays exactly as if fuel was always porked in every base? Thats what a 2x burn rate is - porked fuel all the time - a p51's dream.