Author Topic: Why fuel burn is back to 2 ? (Read 7870 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #135 on:** May 27, 2004, 10:43:21 PM »

flaps737,

Try turnfighting an La-7 in a Mossie with 100% and then try it in a Mossie with 5%.

I've never won such a fight except when I was on fumes. At 100% it isn't even close.

A fully laden Mossie is carrying ~3,600lbs of fuel. The only reason you don't feel it is because it drains slowly. When you drop 2,000lbs of bombs you sure feel the difference and that is less weight.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #136 on:** May 27, 2004, 11:39:19 PM »

On an aside, the only logical reason I can see for making the burn rate faster is because the average number of kills per hour is too high. So I guess those below average (like me) will gripe more

Thing is, it might lose any people way below average. Then again, the increased factor of luck might keep them arround?

nopoop · « **Reply #137 on:** May 27, 2004, 11:39:38 PM »

The modification in fuel porkage is what rocks.

Early and midwar planes are no longer cut off at the knees.

I'm jacked, good show !!

DipStick · « **Reply #138 on:** May 28, 2004, 02:45:48 AM »

Quote

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.

WTG Pyro!

straffo · « **Reply #139 on:** May 28, 2004, 03:53:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Virage
straffo, my remark was for those complaining about the 109. However I did check out the tiffy as you suggested:

Mil power

AH1 : 100% = 27 min
+DT = 40 min

AH2 : 100% = 24 min
+DT = 35 min
*(on deck times)
Not much of a difference, which would average out with alt.

Sorry I didn't see your post.
You didn't take into account the historical role of the Typhoon , it's a Jabo plane it's more supposed to be used with DT but more with bombs.

In the case you have 100% + bombs you got to the target climbing at full power because it the only efficient way to climb.

So you will end at 10K over your target any 109 taking off when penetrate the area covered will be over you.

If you survive the bombing (don't forget there is ack

) and the 109 you can't do anything except RTB .

bozon · « **Reply #140 on:** May 28, 2004, 05:28:52 AM »

straffo,
I can sympathise with your problem. I like the P-47 and always wondered how such a successfull plane in RL is such a cr@p in every flight sim I played. and how "unknown" planes like the La7 and N1k turn out to be the real hot rods of WWII.

The reasons are based on real world conditions usually not factored in to the sims. The P-47 IS inferior to most WWII fighters if you fight it on the deck, but take it to 25k and it's another story. The La7 really was a hotrod, but it's use was EXTREMELY limited by it's range.

In the case of the typhoon, it was not meant to waste fuel on "grabbing alt". In the "seek and destroy" missions it's famed for, it didn't carry heavy payload, it carried mainly rockets/small bombs and the 4 cannons. And operated from fields close to the front. The RAF had the mossie for strikes, typhoon for close support.

HTC is trying to insert another factor into the simmulation and this one turns out to be the bane of the hotrods. the cost of having a plane that out-accelerates everything and reaches close to 400 mph in the weeds, is a ridiculously short flight time. So now you have to choose, preformance or endurance. Fly around at 400mph or slow down to conserve fuel.

The fuel porkage will be limited as pyro stated, so the only remaining issue is the exact fuel multiplier. too much, and some planes will be unplayable. too little and the hotrods will loose their only disadvantage. I agree that 2 is "on the edge" for some planes. 1.5-2 is the acceptable range IMO.

Bozon

straffo · « **Reply #141 on:** May 28, 2004, 06:27:31 AM »

I agree with you bozon

But there is perhaps something in the E6B actually but I need to test further.

Last night I did up in a typhoon I've seen the consumption drop as expected as the alt increased at 10K it was at a minimun and started to increase again.

Nothing abnormal at one exception between 10K and 11K I've seen consumption increase abruptly from 450 to 550 (approximately and without engaging WEP) then it fall back to 450 and started increase at the same rate as previously.

I need to test further.

Batz · « **Reply #142 on:** May 28, 2004, 06:56:09 AM »

Straffo,

Good fight

However, with fuel porking under control things should be better then the AH1 main.

I do agree Godo that the higher the fuel multiple the less combat time (read as FUN) players flying yaks, las, spits etc will have. Adjusting the fuel mod to somewhere between 1.5 - 2.0 has barely any noticeable effect on the p51 / p38 player.

But for the guy in a yak any added minute to his combat time is another minute of potential fun.

ergRTC · « **Reply #143 on:** May 28, 2004, 07:23:22 AM »

Any of you guys bothered trying to manage your fuel a little? Just a small reduction in rpms or throttle doubles flight time. When I have 10min left at full throttle, I also have 50 minutes left at cruising speed.

As long as you have a 2k or so advantage, you can easily, and quickly get a 109 up to the 400 mph you are used to cruising at.

I think it is extrodinarily lame that many of you feel you need to have this crutch for the game to be enjoyable.

It is so much more satisfying to see an enemy aircraft, push the throttle forward, hear the engine open up and dive in, rather than just fly around gamily full tilt all the time.

straffo · « **Reply #144 on:** May 28, 2004, 07:48:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ergRTC
I think it is extrodinarily lame that many of you feel you need to have this crutch for the game to be enjoyable.

Thank for your kind words...
Re-read again this thread.

Quote

It is so much more satisfying to see an enemy aircraft, push the throttle forward, hear the engine open up and dive in, rather than just fly around gamily full tilt all the time.

Good I've nothing against but why should I be forced to do so if some just don't have to care because they are favorised by the setup.

ergRTC · « **Reply #145 on:** May 28, 2004, 08:04:37 AM »

Well, lets take a 205 vs a p51. The 205 outclimbs and out accelerates the p51. It also handles nearly as well as the p51 at high speed, and much much better at low speed. All that leaves the p51 with is high speed handling, high alt handling, and a large fuel tank.

I think the advantages of the 205 are now balanced with the p51, not the other way around. (guns are purely a personal matter with these two planes)

Same goes with the La7. This plane should almost be perked. Why? All advantages and only 1 disadvantage (compression and personnally I cant hit a barn with the cannons). Now that fuel consumption is something you need to worry about, it has a huge disadvantage it would have had historically, but has never mattered in AH.

Batz · « **Reply #146 on:** May 28, 2004, 08:07:15 AM »

This thread is a about what the fuel mod should be in AH2, not your opinion on how others choose to enjoy their time...

What's extraordinarily lame is your inability to distinguish between fun (combat time) and the time it takes flying around being bored...

If the fuel mod is at 2 or 1.75 it has no effect on players who fly US planes (for the most part), however it has an effect on those who fly other planes.

It is those flying the p51s who take 50% fuel and DT the cruise around at full tilt. Even if the fuel mod goes to 1.5 planes like the yak, etc, will still need to manage their fuel to increase their fun (combat time).

The fact one player prefers a fuel mod at 1.5 over 2.0 has no relation to "realism".

Quote

We talking about what the artificial fuel burn rate should be in the non-historical context like the main arena and its impact on fun.

ergRTC · « **Reply #147 on:** May 28, 2004, 09:19:52 AM »

The fact that you seem to think my enjoyment does not matter....

As far as I can tell, 2 produces a realistic time of flight, accents the disadvantages of flying gas guzzlers with small gas tanks, and makes the game far less gamey and more interesting.

The real issue, is that people in the war did not fly around at mil power 24/7. The reasons why are a little different (engine wear, as well as fuel economy). This fundamentally changes tactics.

You are afraid that the allies will recieve all of the advantages, but you neglect the fact that US planes do not perform as well axis planes in many circumstances. Why? Because they are flying gas tanks. If the axis had turned the 109 into a flying gas tank, I am sure it would no longer be such an attractive plane. I cant wait to try a scenario with the f6f and zero and nik after ah2 comes around.

This thread has been constuctive though,

The two great Ideas I think so far are...

1) Change fuel % to gallons available to equalize the large vs small tank issue.

2) no DT unless 100% fuel.

straffo · « **Reply #148 on:** May 28, 2004, 09:37:40 AM »

Your mistaken ergRTC I don't want one of another plane to be dis or advantaged (it's the job of the pilot

)

can you look at this thread and input your opinion ?

Edbert · « **Reply #149 on:** May 28, 2004, 09:39:46 AM »

Completely unscientific observations from last night (regarding the short legs of the Bf109)...

I took off at A43 in a 109G2 (1X20) with 100% fuel and no DT, climbed to about 8K at full mill. Levelled at full mill and headed to A42. Engaged a few enemies used some WEP, chopped throttle a few times, grabbed, hunted, attacked, grabbed again, and loitered. I left when I was down to ~15% fuel on low throttle and landed a few kills. Only thing I did "scientific" was watch the clock. It was about a 35 minute sortie and I had some gas left when I landed, though not much. All combat took place in enemy airspace. This was basically not a problem on the Baltic map. When we go to one of those commuter maps it would be. maybe we need to look at modifying the FBM depending on which map is active, but I don't know if thats practical or not.

Nice plane BTW...note to self...