Author Topic: Why fuel burn is back to 2 ? (Read 9445 times)

GScholz · « **Reply #195 on:** May 29, 2004, 06:12:12 PM »

Yeah I'm a gamey dweeb because I want things to be like they really were back in WWII, 1:1 scale map and everything. Of course the furballers will object to that, and with good reason. So we get an MA with airfields close together (like on the Eastern Front) and the furballers are happy. Ok by me. Then of course we get the fuel burn multiplier to give the long-range fighters an edge in the furball over those planes actually designed for the job. Then we get morons posting that taking an La-7 or a Typhoon to cap a field 25 miles away is "using the wrong tool for the job", you need a P-51 for that job! *LOL!* I hate this crap.

ergRTC · « **Reply #196 on:** May 29, 2004, 06:47:55 PM »

Why not just wait for TOD? I have not stepped foot in the MA for nearly a year, and still enjoy the game. Have not even played in the CT for ages waiting for the ah2 release. So far I have not found anything that will cramp my style. It is sad that you find this such an issue, but perhaps you will just have to change the way you play. If, as you say, you want 1:1 then I dont see the problem. I am not financially envolved with the company besides my 12 dollars a month, so if all the gamers leave after the new release, I will just be that much happier.

jetb123 · « **Reply #197 on:** May 29, 2004, 06:53:33 PM »

Well that just means every fighter will be taking droptanks. maybe they did for the Bombers in a 17 you can go half around the with 25% fuel. I am not sure if that is realistic

GScholz · « **Reply #198 on:** May 29, 2004, 06:58:26 PM »

If you don't have a vested interest in the game why are you even posting here?! The map IS 1:1 scale compared to the eastern front. The forward airfields of the VVS and LW were mere kilometres behind the front lines, just like in the MA. I however recognize the need for some players to just furball, and this MA lets them do just that without detracting anything from my fun. However this ridiculous fuel burn multiplier is! It should never have been implemented in the first place. If you want to fly a long-range mission, hook up with some bombers and escort them to some strat targets. With the new large maps you will get plenty of opportunity to manage your fuel. The short-ranged planes were designed for close support for a ground war LIKE THE MA!

ergRTC · « **Reply #199 on:** May 29, 2004, 07:27:25 PM »

Do you actually understand why the fuel multiplier is so high? Do you understand why there is a new engine management system?

Just tell me what reason HTC gave for adding this to the game, outside of TOD.

After you do that, perhaps there will no longer be an issue.

fyi I just took a spin in the yak9t. Plenty of fuel. Climbed up to 10k, brought it down to cruise had 40 minutes of flight left, traveled 1 sector and suicided myself into a tiger tank. Had enough fuel for 15 minutes of full time mil power with plenty left to get home.

From pyro
"So what is the real purpose of engine management in real life? It primarily breaks down to two reasons. Fuel efficiency and maintenance considerations. Fuel efficiency should be obvious. You will get a lot more range at a more efficient setting. Maintenance considerations are there to extend engine life and time between overhauls. People see a time limit on military power for a plane and assume that that means the engine will overheat or blow up if you run it longer than that and that’s not the case.

Contrary to what a lot of people think, we actually would like to see people use engine management. But not in some contrived only-in-the-sim-world setup. One of the main considerations for any WWII pilot was his fuel and we’ve always wanted that to be central in the game as well. I just haven’t done a good job with that. With the latest beta release, we’re really looking to get that where we’ve always wanted it to be."

ergRTC · « **Reply #200 on:** May 29, 2004, 07:28:31 PM »

From pyro (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107449&perpage=50&highlight=engine%20management&pagenumber=2)

"
I would like to see a reason not to use mil power so much but I don't want to blow up or damage your engine for doing it. I don't buy the assumption that it's realistic, because it's not realistic as I've already outlined. It's arbitrary. Yes, there are instances where you turn to arbitrary solutions, but I don't view this as one. So that takes us back to an original idea that we couldn't get working well and left half abandoned, and that is a good fuel consumption model. But now we have it working like we wanted it to and can make it a central feature. That's a big difference. Grab a P-51 manual and setup some cruise conditions in the beta. You'll get the right speeds and the right fuel consumption at the various altitudes and cruise settings.

Engine management lies in the throttle and prop controls. People chase red herrings like mixture control, supercharger control, etc., in the quest for more complexity, but the shocking revelation is that designers didn't want their planes to be complex and eliminated any pilot load they could. To get an insight into how manufacturers and military brass looked at airplane systems design and the capability of the average military pilot, I highly recommend reading the transcripts of the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference published by Schiffer. Look at the P-51 and look at all the systems that people request. Mixture- automated. Supercharger- automated. There was manual override, but this was to do ground checks and the switch is spring-loaded to the automatic position. Cooling flap- automated. There was a manual override for this, but that was in the event of a malfunction with the temperature sensing circuit or something. As pointed out, even the Germans didn't want to deal with requiring the pilot to make separate prop adjustments from the throttle. If anybody is really hot and heavy on this subject, do yourself a favor and plop down $10 a pop for some flight manual reprints and re-examine what you think is necessary to the model. Like I said before, I once was in that school of thought but found a lot of my assumptions to be incorrect."

GODO · « **Reply #201 on:** May 29, 2004, 07:29:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
There is NOTHING realistic about using a fuel burn multiplier since the arena isn't compressed in the vertical.

Very true.

GScholz · « **Reply #202 on:** May 29, 2004, 07:40:44 PM »

Artificially increasing fuel burn is NOT ADDING FUN OR REALISM TO THE GAME. It is DETRACTING FUN AND REALISM FROM THE GAME. If any of you have the misfortune of believing that anyone will be using fuel management to cruise in the MA you are sadly mistaken. They will just have to RTB sooner at MIL or WEP. In the MA the enemy will not let you go if you disengage and run, they will chase you down. Anyone flying at cruise is an easy target for those that are not. The fuel burn modifier is nothing but a gamey attempt at behaviour control over something that cannot be controlled. People will not conserve fuel because in the MA speed is life.

6GunUSMC · « **Reply #203 on:** May 29, 2004, 07:59:52 PM »

I agree with GS above... this is a nutty idea. If you want faster action put fields closer together and leave the fuel alone.

SlapShot · « **Reply #204 on:** May 29, 2004, 08:09:19 PM »

The main isn’t realism, it’s about fun. 8 min more fuel in a 109e or la7 or yak9u doesn’t affect the p51s one bit...

It does however mean something to guy flying those other planes. Or else have an arena full of p51s and p38s and nothing else....

This is the most sensible and simplistic thing said in all of these posts, all the rest of the stuff is fluff and BS posturing.

All for the sake of "real" fuel/engine management, we are going to have an arena full of P-51s and P-38s and the like. This is the thing that scares/bothers me most.

Is the fuel burn rate of 2 a way to limit the amount of LAs and Spits that we now see in the MA. People are constantly pissin' and moanin' about these planes, and it appears that they are the ones that are going to suffer the most at the hands of 2 FBM. Could it be ?

The resulting effect will only cause a transfer over to the late war big gas tank planes, so we will have an arena of all big tank BnZ planes while the early war planes and small gas tank planes sit in the hanger and collect dust.

For the MA, leave it as it was or make it 1.5.

For AH II : TOD, CT, or any attempt at realistic reinactment, set it at 2 for those that need the realisim fix.

I don't envy HTC on this one .. damned if you do ... damned if you don't

ergRTC · « **Reply #205 on:** May 29, 2004, 08:23:05 PM »

It would be more fun without gravity, inertia, limited ammo....

I have an old commodore 64 with a flight sim fitting that description. Perhaps you guys could share it.

I agree that this is not perfect, but..

I also firmly believe that the game is only improved when players fly in a realistic manner.

GScholz · « **Reply #206 on:** May 29, 2004, 08:31:55 PM »

People will fly in a realistic manner if we have 1:1 scale maps, no dar, no icons, no gps map, realistic turnaround time, ground control, military discipline, chain of command and an overall command effort ... i.e. NEVER.

An artificially high fuel burn rate will only force the short-ranged planes out of the game. Why even bother modelling them?

6GunUSMC · « **Reply #207 on:** May 29, 2004, 08:33:30 PM »

Then do all this garbage in the CT... leave the MA alone.

TDeacon · « **Reply #208 on:** May 29, 2004, 09:14:31 PM »

ErgRTC:

The "realism" argument is a common one in simulations (boardgames, miniatures games, computer games, etc.) However, it by itself, is obviously not sufficient justification for a feature. For example, we don't really die in the game. This is not realistic, but is nevertheless desirable.

Karnak · « **Reply #209 on:** May 29, 2004, 09:28:58 PM »

ergRTC,

How is it realistic for you and I to fly about on MIL and WEP, never worrying about fuel or engine managment?

How is it realistic that Bf109s, Tiffies, Yaks, Hurris, Fw190s, P-40s, Lachovkins and Spits have to fiddle with engine managment and P-51s, A6Ms, Mossies, N1Ks, P-38s, F6Fs, P-47s and F4Us don't?