Author Topic: Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?  (Read 9438 times)

Offline vorticon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7935
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2004, 04:29:33 PM »
Quote
... I'm done

I WIN :D

Quote
Originally posted by straffo
Hahemm ... can you step out of this thraed please :)

Btw arguing about Input and Output in bidirectional system is a no go :) it's all relative.


<<<<<=PWNED!

jerkface... ruin my fun will you...

Offline Replicant

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3567
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2004, 04:52:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
I can't disagree with that :)

My concern is more in some planes you don't have the option to go to 30k , the slow climbing Typhoon is a perfect example of this (add to this the fact the typhoon is really not an high alt fighter).

For example a p51 with 75% can have the option to use full power to got to cruise alt using perhaps 25% fuel.
Next he will have plenty of fuel left to patrol.

A typhoon cannot :(


Bozon you're right , but if you look at my example with the p51 you will notice a tactical advantage for it compare to my beloved typhoon.
IRL one of the advantage the typhoon had was is fast cruise speed , this advantage don't exist.


Plus I'm not sure if it has an influence on trimming and so stability intuitively I would say yes,but I'm far to be a real aeronautical ingeneer so I' not sure.

Mathman even if your reason look plausible I won't buy it ;)


I tested the Typhoon with the fuel burn rate at 2.

Took off 100% fuel, 2 x 1000lb bombs and climbed to 14,000ft.  This used 2/3 of the Aux tank and took 8 minutes to cover 27 miles.  I then dived releases the ordnance and spent 4 minutes on station deacking until the remaining 1/3 aux fuel had been used.  I then climbed up to 10,000ft and RTB'd using WEP to a different base that was 50 miles away.  I landed with 1/8th fuel left.  Total sortie time 24 minutes.  Full throttle was used at all times (which was mostly done climbing).

At this rate you'll be lucky if you stick around to engage anything and God forbid if you want to climb to a higher altitude or hit a base further away.  High altitude terrains like Trinity and Mindanao are going to be painful!

I tried the same with the P51D, heavy, 100% and it had nearly double the range of the Typhoon.

I don't know how the fuel burn rate affects the other aircraft but all I can see is that it's going to have a detrimental effect on game play.  Planes good on fuel can fly around full throttle etc., yet planes with limited range will have to fly reduced throttle and be at a disadvantage if engaged.

Of course we'll most likely get used to it but I'd be more happy with the same settings as AH1.
NEXX

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #47 on: May 25, 2004, 05:00:16 PM »
I did test quickly tonight :

50 % yak vs 50% P51 (I'm using the 51 as a example not that I hate this plane :))

One plane is <"easy mode no-brainer"> plane with the other I was just not able to RTB even monitoring my fuel.


I'm sorry to say I think you wasted ressources making the E6B it serve nothing.

The plane that would have took advantage of this cannot .
For the other planes it's just not necessary to bother with fuel management.


I still don't understand the need of the burn multiplier at 2.

If set at 1 the p51 pilots will have the option to put 25%or 50%  fuel.
If set at 2 I won't ever have the option to have 150%, 175% fuel

Offline Pyro

  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4020
      • http://www.hitechcreations.com
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #48 on: May 25, 2004, 05:51:52 PM »
Would your test be so different if we ran with no multiplier and a 1:1 scale map?  You fly from England to France in a Typhoon, drop some bombs, do some strafing, and come back sucking fumes.  You then do the same thing in a P-51 and find that you still have plenty of fuel to spare.  Is that a surprising result?

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #49 on: May 25, 2004, 06:55:58 PM »
re max endurance.........

There are some very long legged ac that will never really be effected even at 2 FBM...........

There are some short legged ac that are effected  at 1 FBM............. these same short legged ac are not only affected at  2 FBM...........in my opinion they are penalised

In these ac you simply cannot have more than  1 or at best 2 fights remote from base field before you are forced to rtb......... often if you enter combat with less than half a tank (whilst a sector out) it is more than likely you will not get back............ indeed  if combat is extended there is a high likely hood that even entering it with half a tank could cause you to run out of fuel mid combat.

What ever the FBM is, folk will generally (IMO) choose a tank capacity that will allow them to travel a sector have 2 or 3 fights and travel a sector back. Or there abouts (unless defending a base).

Given fuel management they will be able to start lighter, fight lighter and manage fuel to extend their return. All benefits of fuel management.

Hence fuel management still has a benefit at lower (actual)  FBM's whether it be a P51 or an La5FN.

However set the FBM too high and some ac cant do this at all.......they are denied the opportunity to enjoy combat beyond a certain non historical range and time of endurance.

Map scaling

Obviously in certain parts of most maps fields are closer than would have ever occurred and this masks the endurance issues at full tank capacities..........i would point out that it applies to part tank capacities as much as it ever did.

It would also seem to me that the reason the fields are closer than  historical reality is to enable quicker access to combat (and hence more potential combat time) yet a high FBM (for some ac)forces a quicker end to combat (even at 100% tankage) hence more time is spent travelling to and from combat and less is spent in combat


HTC has gone to considerable trouble to make a more accurate fuel capacity and fuel usage model and now (it seems to me) will modify it to bring about the effect of reducing combat time for a group of short legged ac.

It may be that 1.5 is some sort of compromise but in actuality other parts of the FM (once modelled properly) are sacrisacnt.........so why modify this one for game play when it will be utilised at FBM = 1 any way.
Ludere Vincere

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #50 on: May 26, 2004, 12:41:37 AM »
So, the complaint is that some planes have a negative characteristic in that they either have a high rate of fuel consumption or a low fuel capacity, or both. And this causes said planes to operate at a disadvantage.

As such, fans of said planes would like this negative characteristic of said planes to be rendered a non issue, or at least somewhat mitigated.

So while they are removing a disadvantage from your favorite ride that was designed in as a negative characteristic in the real palne, what negative characteristics that cause a disadvantage for the other planes should be removed from the other planes?

Oh, I see. It wouldn't be right to make slower planes faster, or less agile planes more agile, but it would be okay to artificially increase the relative operating combat radius of planes with small fuel tanks or high fuel consumption. That makes PERFECT sense.

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

The fuel multiplier is the same for every plane. Just like the distance between bases is. Just like the wind. Just like the elevation. Seems reasonable to me.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #51 on: May 26, 2004, 01:28:23 AM »
The flight duration is artificially short in ratio for the short laegged aircraft at altitude, other than that you are correct.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #52 on: May 26, 2004, 01:38:36 AM »
Quote
Kweassa I don't think a single moment this idea will be implemented.

This idea is about 4 year old now.


 I strongly think you should start a separate thread to lobby about this. It is a good idea, and a BALANCING idea.
 
 Obviously if "realism", or "realism molded into gameplay settings" is the issue, then as much as short-legged planes suffer from their realistic shortcomings, the long-legged planes should abide by the logic of fuel management.

 No plane in real life would fly with a half-empty tank, and use the DTs only on the climb out. The DTs are an aid to a plane's range when it cannot commute the distance with inboard fuel alone.

 Having a 50% tank to assist in a fight, and casually dumping off DTs which was not required in the first place, is purely gamey approach.

 So, if a long-legged plane wants to fly around with a 50% tank for short range fights - ok, fine. No problem.

 But if they want to really fly around some more and still fight, then choose max fuel load. If max fuel load isn't enough(which is a rare thing to happen), then ok, use DTs.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #53 on: May 26, 2004, 03:12:48 AM »
I think that requiring 100% fuel before allowing droptanks is a very good idea.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #54 on: May 26, 2004, 03:37:56 AM »
Same....

Please make 100% internal fuel a requirement for carrying a DT....

The bigger issue with the high fuel mod is that if like in AH1 the fuel pork and auger mentality manifests itself there will no point to flying aircraft like yaks, 109s, las etc... 25% fuel isnt enough to circle the field

On mil power (100% throttle) w/ 25% fuel

109 F4, G2, G6 = 7 min of fuel

205 = 8 min

190a5 = 6 min

La5FN and La7 = 5 min

Spit 9 = 6 min

Yak 9t and 9u = 7 min

Typh = 6 min.

These are just a few I checked.....

I admit its a double edged sword. The lower the fuel mod the less fuel most Ami planes will take.  They will always be at 50 or 25% looking to get the advantage of lighter weight.

I said before I think all planes ought to be forced to take 100% fuel and if they choose a DT. Of course you would have to address fuel porking (ie make it impossible). If thosde who fly US planes wanna fight light let them fly around for a few hours burning off fuel.

I doudt HT would go that way so at the very least force folks to take 100% internal if they want a dt...

With out addressing fuel porking and keeping a high fuel mod we will see nothing but Ami planes in the main...

It would suck worse then the AH main...

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #55 on: May 26, 2004, 04:01:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
Would your test be so different if we ran with no multiplier and a 1:1 scale map?  You fly from England to France in a Typhoon, drop some bombs, do some strafing, and come back sucking fumes.  You then do the same thing in a P-51 and find that you still have plenty of fuel to spare.  Is that a surprising result?


Cannot disagree it's true.

My concern is more the use of DT to extend the range without the drawback of fuel management.

The fuel porking is not a problem if there is not enought fuel I'll switch field or plane or both.

But why can some have fantasy loadout and so negating fuel management ?
I'll post later my thought and like Kweassa said make another thread.

btw Pyro I hope you don't take my post bad it's not a critic of the game nor a whine (well at least for me :)) it's just some suggestions.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #56 on: May 26, 2004, 04:03:28 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
So, the complaint is that some planes have a negative characteristic in that they either have a high rate of fuel consumption or a low fuel capacity, or both. And this causes said planes to operate at a disadvantage.

As such, fans of said planes would like this negative characteristic of said planes to be rendered a non issue, or at least somewhat mitigated.

So while they are removing a disadvantage from your favorite ride that was designed in as a negative characteristic in the real palne, what negative characteristics that cause a disadvantage for the other planes should be removed from the other planes?

Oh, I see. It wouldn't be right to make slower planes faster, or less agile planes more agile, but it would be okay to artificially increase the relative operating combat radius of planes with small fuel tanks or high fuel consumption. That makes PERFECT sense.

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

The fuel multiplier is the same for every plane. Just like the distance between bases is. Just like the wind. Just like the elevation. Seems reasonable to me.


I don't think you've read the posts in this thread closely enought.

It increase the effect of some negative characteristic not make them realistic.

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #57 on: May 26, 2004, 04:22:39 AM »
having (historical) range limitations to some planes will result in using other planes for long range raids. If you want to fly 2.5 sectors to attack a base and RTB you'll have to use mossies or p-38 or A20 as jabbos instead of a typhoon.

or even better - use bombers and long range escorts.

Bozon
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #58 on: May 26, 2004, 04:50:54 AM »
Batz,

I don't think that 100% fuel should be required, but 100% fuel should be required in order to take droptanks.

No more P-51s taking 25% and droptanks because they know that using the drop tanks to get them to the target and dumping them leaves them light enough to fight more effectively and still return to base.


If you simply force 100% then all long range aircraft will simply fly around at full MIL power all the time.  If you are in a P-51, A6M, Bf110, Mossie, Ta152 or P-38 why not?  That would give them an advantage out of the gate over any Bf109, Fw190, Spit or Tiffy that was forced to fly on minimum consumption settings.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Batz

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3470
      • http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/wotans/4JG53/
Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?
« Reply #59 on: May 26, 2004, 06:03:18 AM »
Quote
If you simply force 100% then all long range aircraft will simply fly around at full MIL power all the time. If you are in a P-51, A6M, Bf110, Mossie, Ta152 or P-38 why not? That would give them an advantage out of the gate over any Bf109, Fw190, Spit or Tiffy that was forced to fly on minimum consumption settings.


They do that now. As Straffo said above planes like the Typh with a high cruise speed get no advantage because aircraft with large fuel capacity simply fly at mil power all the time. But they do it with less then 100%. So they get the advantage of less weight, higher cruise and longer range.

The only planes right now that fly at cruise setting are those ac with limited fuel capacity and no DTs....

Quote
The fuel porking is not a problem if there is not enought fuel I'll switch field or plane or both


Its not a problem now. In the Ah1 main it is. Of the 3 times I checked in over the past 10 days almost every field had fuel porked. A 50 mile flight with a 100% fuel isnt going to give you any more combat time then upping with 25% fuel at a front line field for 8 min. You just get an added 15 min long boring flight.

In AH2 my clipboard favorites only have 3 planes, F4 G2 and G6. I dont care about flying anything else so it doesnt matter if I switch planes, they all get the same fuel consumption (or close to it).