Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?

[bozon]

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.

This is not exactly true.
The P-47/38 for instance have a great range not because of fuel efficiency. Far from it, they are gas hogs, but also flying tankers. The extra range comes at the cost of extra weight.

The 109 is the only plane (that i fly) in which i take 100% even in AHI. it simply has a tiny fuel tank (106 gallons for the G2). The Jug on the other hand can load up 370 gallons!! that's right. more than 3 times the 109's fuel load. The p-38 takes 410 gallons (that's 205 per engine - twice than the 109).

so the 109 never carries more fuel than the jug, and if they load up the same ammount (in gallons, not presentage) the 109 will probably fly longer than the jug.
Even if jugs load only 50% that's still 80% more fuel than the 109's max fuel load.

Bozon

edit:
just checked the typhoon's fuel tank. 185 little gallons. you can safly load it 100% and have the 50% fuel load of the jug.

[Batz]

I dont know what it is you are telling me...?

Far from it, they are gas hogs, but also flying tankers. The extra range comes at the cost of extra weight.

That is what I said....

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.

[Replicant]

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?

Well, if you want to make it a realistic flight simulator then make it into a real flight simulator with everything else that we're missing.  On one hand you're saying how you want to improve enagements and have bases closer together (not realistic) and then the next you're increasing burn rate so the chances of engagements are made even less tangiable.

Any chance of the rockets/DTs available at same time?

I'd go for burn rate x2 in the TOD but definitely not in the Classic.

[Zanth]

Fuel measured as a arbitrary percentage of storage capacity, rather than an actual measured amount (pound/gallons) is a economical programing method with game play complications.

The problem is the measurement system.  Fixable?  That is way beyond my pay grade, but it seems to me we should be loading pounds or gallons instead of percentages.

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Zanth
Fuel measured as a arbitrary percentage of storage capacity, rather than an actual measured amount (pound/gallons) is a economical programing method with game play complications.

The problem is the measurement system.  Fixable?  That is way beyond my pay grade, but it seems to me we should be loading pounds or gallons instead of percentages.

I agree. By using gallons per plane available on an airfield instead of a percentage the light interceptors would still get the fuel they need to defend the base, but the base would still be heavily reduced in its ability to launch offensive operations. The reason fuel poking is such a menace in the MA is because it destroys the ability to defend the bases with the planes designed for the job.

When the fuel is all up the availability should be "unlimited", and as each tank gets destroyed the availability drops. First it will affect bombers, then the long-range and /or fuel thirsty fighters. Each pilot should be given an equal amount fuel no matter what plane he flies.

[ergRTC]

Most of this comes down to people using planes in ways which they were not intended.  

Hopefully the fuel thing will help people understand why a plane that may not have been the fastest or the best cannons was in fact a very competent aircraft during the war.  

 dogfighting 190s with a typhoon may be possible and even a reasonable thing to do if you have an alt advantage, enough fuel to make it home, and friends around.  Dogfighting in a typhoon on fumes over german occupied france was probably not a good idea.

[straffo]

I give up.

It's a waste of time.

[Rolex]

I'm confused. What does this have to do with defining input or ouput?

Okay, I'm probably going to either get banned or banged over the head for this, but here goes:

I think Pyro (et al) has already thought this through (because this is what he does for a living and I don't believe it was an aribtrary decision...) and is letting you know that it is an intended part of AH2 game play. His only question was a rhetorical one.

We will have to select and adapt to the aircraft strengths and weaknesses as they are/were.

(Please note that I said "I think..." because I am not trying to speak for Pyro or anyone. Please do not stab, shoot, fold, spindle or mutilate me.)

Oh God, I'm going to be in soooo much trouble...

[Zanth]

Pyro - The larger fuel burn rate is not just there to give a purpose to managing your engine and fuel. Range and endurance are crucial characteristics of these planes. We want that to be a factor in the game but we don't want people to have to fly for an hour or more just to get into a fight.

The multiplier begs the question of "is the cure worse than the disease?":

- You want to handicap the flight time of long range aircraft a bit, but the trouble is you also disporportionately hit planes which can ill afford it.

- A multiplier also alters the flight model of aircraft.   Planes have a heavier "fighting weight"  than they would otherwise have, and the weight changes on a more compressed time curve.

First off this question has to be looked at from the perspective of the MA separately from the perspective of a historical set-up or event - these are two entirely different environments.  In the MA I don't think we care where a plane came from or how many miles it flew to get there.  What matters is a reasonably competitive fight and not much (anything?) else.  It is the feeling of many that the multiplier does not accomplish this, and I tend to agree

If the flight to target is a critical concern, then give the long range aircraft a minimum fuel loading to reflect this.  Otherwise I am very much in favor of a return to accurate fuel consumption.  

P.S.(as well as loading gallons/pounds not percentages of fuel)

[Pyro]

I wouldn't mind a restriction on DTs although I think that's a perceived problem more than a real one.  

I won't argue about us not using historical distances in the MA.  If you don't already understand why that's done, I doubt I can convince you.  

It's a mistake to say I want to handicap long range planes.  The long range planes are beneficiaries of this, relatively speaking.  The planes are going to be short, medium, or long ranged according to what trade-offs the designer made.  All I'm doing is redefining what short, medium, and long range is in the game.

[bozon]

Originally posted by Batz
I dont know what it is you are telling me...?

"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."

That is what I said....

read it again. there's no advantage of less weight. the only advantage is the longer range and none more.

planes that did not require any range were designed like hotrods. just take a look at the La7. an unbeliveable preformer, but had hardly the fuel endurance to take off, climb just a little, reach the border and come home.

Bozon

[straffo]

Pyro I did the following tonight :

-up in a D9 75% fuel + DT
-climbed with wep to 15K
-at 15K I stopped wep
-over the enemy field I droped my DT
-killed 4 guys
-RTB

Never I had to worry about fuel I never looked the gauge, and was still having gaz after landing.

Now with a lower multiplier I'll have a D9 less nimble/maneuvrable because of fuel overload or I'm mistaken ?

And to avoid flying an overloaded plane I would have been forced to take less fuel and so forced to managed fuel.

What do you think of having multiplier at 1 or 1.5  but in the hangar giving access to some lower loadout like 10%-15%-20% ?

In this case it won't be the arena setting that will force (or not for some planes) the player to manage fuel but more the player that will be force himself to manage fuel or not.

@Bozon : you likely don't have read about the Russian front it was not uncomon for the Russian pilot to see their airfield shelled...

For example in the case of the Normandie-Niemen they had to evacuate their new homefield where they landed the in the morning because some german tank were still near ...

Why would have the russian needed planes able to fly long range when it was not their doctrine ?

[hitech]

Straffo, you would be taking away the advantage of long range, that some planes had.

As to the less nimble question, if burn multiplier was less, you would just take off with 25 or 50 instead of 75. After tank drop would be even more nimble.

HiTech

[GScholz]

Hitech, my problem is not the range difference, but the time difference. Such as it is in AHII now I have less than 20 min in my 109 with 100% fuel. Now with fuel management that can be extended quite a bit, however I can't use fuel management in a climb. The most fuel economical way to climb is on WEP.

A typical 109 flight for me with a droptank would be T/O and climb to 25K (6-7 min) cruise while looking for prey (limited to 10 minutes to reserve fuel for RTB), engage enemy (limited to 5 min), extend and climb to conserve fuel (5 min), RTB and land (10 min). It's the climbing part and actual combat that sucks most of my fuel. The cruising part where I can use fuel management is trivial.

Point interceptors are harshly punished by the burn multiplier because the arena is not "compressed" in the vertical. In real life the P-51 could cruise for ages, true, but the point interceptors like the 109 and Spitfire had plenty of fuel to do their job, namely climb, find the enemy and fight. Now I'm limited to about 5 min combat time. There is no realism in this.

[GODO]

Just to compare:

La7 WEP 100% fuel 17 mins
La7 mil 100% fuel 21 mins

La5 WEP 100% fuel 17 mins
La5 mil 100% fuel 21 mins

190D9 WEP 100% fuel 17 mins
190D9 mil 100% fuel 26 mins
190D9 WEP 100% fuel + DT 28 mins
190D9 mil 100% fuel + DT 41 mins

Typhoon WEP 100% fuel 20 mins
Typhoon mil 100% fuel 24 mins
Typhoon WEP 100% fuel + DTs 30 mins
Typhoon mil 100% fuel +DTs 36 mins

109G10 WEP 100% fuel 25 mins
109G10 mil 100% fuel 25 mins
109G10 WEP 100% fuel + DT 43 mins
109G10 mil 100% fuel +DT 43 mins

109G6 WEP 100% fuel 25 mins
109G6 mil 100% fuel 30 mins
109G6 WEP 100% fuel + DT 43 mins
109G6 mil 100% fuel + DT 52 mins

P47D30 WEP 100% fuel 33 mins
P47D30 mil 100% fuel 40 mins
P47D30 WEP 100% fuel + 3 DTs 53 mins
P47D30 mil 100% fuel + 3 DTs 65 mins

La7, D9, Typh and G10, all with 100% are more or less in the same league.