Author Topic: a fuel proposal (simple) (Read 2058 times)

ergRTC · « **Reply #15 on:** May 29, 2004, 08:25:13 PM »

here here tilt.

I say gallons all the way.

Or liters even!

Ecliptik · « **Reply #16 on:** May 29, 2004, 08:35:44 PM »

The agenda behind complaints/suggestions like these is usually to attempt to change the game in such a way as to give the complainer/suggester's favourite ride some advantage over many of the other planes in the set. I don't see this one as any different. You want to be immune to fuel porkage. But only your plane and planes similar to it. Hmmmm.

That aside, I think most of your points are valid. Gas guzzlers should probably be affected more by lack of fuel, but I really don't think that planes with small tanks should be able to up with full fuel no matter how porked the field is. Of the four most prevalent aircraft in the game - the P51, N1KJ, La-7, and Spitfire (of various types), only the 51 carries a lot of fuel. I think implementing Staffo's idea as he laid it out would just make the other three aircraft even more ridiculously popular.

Karnak · « **Reply #17 on:** May 29, 2004, 09:22:42 PM »

Ecliptik,

The N1K2-J also has quite a range.

Also, not all of us who think that short range aircraft are being over penalized stand to benefit from a 1.5 FBM or other solution. My favorite ride now has the longest range on internal tanks of any fighter, yet I think a system that mandates engine management be used by fans of some aircraft and not by fans of other aircraft is probably not a good thing.

straffo · « **Reply #18 on:** May 30, 2004, 05:41:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Screaming won't get your point across better or make your arguement valid.

If 35 gallons of gas in your Yak is the same percentage of fuel capacity as 64 gallons is in a P-51, then that is why you get half the gas.

You're getting an answer, and you are understood. It's just that you aren't getting the answer you WANT. And screaming won't get it for you.

It has nothing to do with how much you pay, and everything to do with the reality of how the plane you want to fly was designed.

Too bad you're losing it. It isn't helping a thing.

I'm loosing my temper because some dumb people blinded by their stupid admiration of 2 engine fighter post stupid messages without even trying to use their brain.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #19 on:** May 30, 2004, 07:38:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
I'm loosing my temper because some dumb people blinded by their stupid admiration of 2 engine fighter post stupid messages without even trying to use their brain.

Tell you what Straffo, when you can learn to act like an adult, as opposed to screaming, whining, temper tantrums, and name calling, I'll treat you like an adult. Until then, I'll just laugh at you and your little hissy fit, and probably make fun of you while I pick your idea to pieces.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #20 on:** May 30, 2004, 08:08:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tilt
No its this part....... I dont dispute that of course a P51 with only a small amount of fuel is also carrying a big tank desgned for more fuel.......... and its fuselage is bigger too......... its a long range escort fighter.

And they do carry a penalty because they have these big tanks etc.......so they should................because so they did.

Your observation is correct and its consequences should be applied IMO............. if you are in an ac which requires more fuel then IMO it should be more effected by fuel attrition than those that do not!

Its a simple concept.......... If you drive a Lincoln Continental and fuel is rationed it will hit you harder than it will hit me in my BMW Mini. Even if your Continental has huge tanks so it can drive further between gas stations. You will be limited to the same number of gals per week as I am and I will be able to drive more and further than you. Because I own a fuel efficient car.

I also agree that "artificial" range enhancement is incorrect........

My mini cannot be "magic'ed' into doing more miles per gallon...its stuck with its performance criteria........... its range cannot be artificially enhanced............. its just actually better at mpg than the continental.

Yet under % fuel the Continental can apparantly have more fuel than the Mini....infact the bigger its tank the more it can have!

Under actual fuel its the fuel supply that decides how much fuel and not the size of the tank that some gas guzzler may have in its bowls.............

The problem with your assumption that fuel rationing in military operations is the same as civilian fuel rationing is that it is an invalid assumption.

Military fuel rationing doesn't work that way. And in fact, in World War II there were different ration cards for different civilians as well.

The assumption that you'd simply put the same number of gallons in every vehicle is simply not the reality. They just don't do it that way. Fuel is rationed on the basis of the priority of the vehicle and the fuel requirement for the vehicle.

The problem we have here is that there are players who prefer to fly planes that in real life had SIGNIFICANTLY shorter time over the target than others. But they want that disadvantage removed for their enjoyment. Or at the very least they want that disadvantaged reduced by a large margin. With no other penalty.

The fact of the matter is that planes like the Yak, the La7, the Tempest, and many others simply did not have the time over target that other planes had given equal missions. Therefore, you cannot expect them to be able to have the same time over target here.

On the otherhand, there is the question of planes with plenty of fuel flying around at military power all the time because they have plenty of fuel. This too is WRONG. The liquid cooled planes like the P-51 and the P-38 had limited time at military power due to overheating. I'll have to look, but I'm sure the same applies to other planes.

If the terrain is compressed then there should be less time available at military power.

Planes that could not fly constantly at military power shouldn't be able to cruise endlessly at military power just because they have plenty of fuel.

Planes that had very significant limits in range and fuel capacity shouldn't get a proportionally larger fuel load so they can fly longer either.

straffo · « **Reply #21 on:** May 30, 2004, 08:22:52 AM »

Again you prefer the status quo because it serve your very own interrest.
You never discussed my proposal , I doubt you even tried to read it.

Plus your rationning post is stupid and irrationnal will any military reserve the best part of his fuel to some ineffiecient planes ?
Just look at the number.

And it's not a question of time over target : this is already affected by the FBM.

It's a question of fairness for the player I'm pretty tired to see this game stay static on some part that are pretty illogic.

I've been waiting 4 years for another beta I'll voice my opinion .

Now just answer this 2 part of this post :

the P51 is a long range fighter
the Yak is a short range fighter
The FBM prevent the use of the Yak as a long range fighter because of the short distance between field in Arena.

This affirmation : The yak is a short range fighter
Is true Yes/No ?

My answer : Yes

Second part (be carefull it's intellectually a challenge)

the P51 is a long range fighter
the Yak is a short range fighter
When there is 50% availlable at a field

This affirmation : The yak is a hangar queen
Is true Yes/No ?

My answer : Yes
Just because by design HTC don't want the Yak to shine in her SPECIFIC role.

straffo · « **Reply #22 on:** May 30, 2004, 08:36:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ecliptik
The agenda behind complaints/suggestions like these is usually to attempt to change the game in such a way as to give the complainer/suggester's favourite ride some advantage over many of the other planes in the set. I don't see this one as any different. You want to be immune to fuel porkage. But only your plane and planes similar to it. Hmmmm.

No I don't want my planbe to be immune to porkage.
I wan't fairness.
If you give 35 Gallon to the p51 I'll be happy.
I don't see why only my plane should be unusable.

Quote

That aside, I think most of your points are valid. Gas guzzlers should probably be affected more by lack of fuel, but I really don't think that planes with small tanks should be able to up with full fuel no matter how porked the field is. Of the four most prevalent aircraft in the game - the P51, N1KJ, La-7, and Spitfire (of various types), only the 51 carries a lot of fuel. I think implementing Staffo's idea as he laid it out would just make the other three aircraft even more ridiculously popular.

Actually you are wrong in the case of the Niki it can carry a lot of fuel.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #23 on:** May 30, 2004, 08:45:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Again you prefer the status quo because it serve your very own interrest.

You never discussed my proposal , you just stirred the pot.

Plus your rationning post is stupid and irrationnal will any military reserve the best part of his fuel to some ineffiecient planes ?

Just look at the number.

It's not a

First, Tilt showed you most of what was wrong with your idea before I ever saw it. So I didn't see much need to carry it further.

And your reply was to ask him to move his idea to another thread.

Good answer. Typical of your attitude. You want what you want and everyone else should pay the price for your desires. And you ask for critics, and then tell them they should post their ideas elsewhere.

But one other problem with your proposal, and it is a glaring one, is that at 75% short range planes pay NO penalty, while long range planes do. Of course, that is fair to YOU.

The military will ration fuel based on priority of the vehicle, and the fuel requirement of that vehicle to get the assigned task done. If it uses more fuel to do its assigned task, if that task has priority, that vehicle gets the fuel, and it gets enough to do the job. It really is simple, but of course in is in conflict with your desire. So in your opinion it is stupid.

Like I said, here we go with name calling again. GROW UP.

Oh, and if you bothered to read, you'd see where I said that no one should be flying around at full military power just because they have the fuel. But since it wasn't a suggestion to give you and your Yak all the range and loiter time you want, you ignored it. Typical.

The problem with you is very obvious, you want what you want, and don't care how realistic it is and how it affects anyone else. And you say you want input from others, but if it is in conflict with your desires, you either say they are stupid or you suggest they take their ideas elsewhere, depending on how much they differ with what you want. You really are pretty simple, and easy to understand.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #24 on:** May 30, 2004, 08:50:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Just because by design HTC don't want the Yak to shine in her SPECIFIC role.

Ooh. Now HTC is out to get you and your plane. Soon, even when there is enough fuel for you to fly, HTC will send the black helicopters with the EMI disrupter beams to your house to crash your computer.

straffo · « **Reply #25 on:** May 30, 2004, 08:53:28 AM »

All of a sudden I understand Henning.

1- Tilt idea is not wrong ,it's a different idea needing IMO a different thread just to avoid confusion in this discussion.

For the rest of your post I don't care your a complete waste.

Plus I don't think you play this game.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #26 on:** May 30, 2004, 09:18:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
All of a sudden I understand Henning.

1- Tilt idea is not wrong ,it's a different idea needing IMO a different thread just to avoid confusion in this discussion.

For the rest of your post I don't care your a complete waste.

Plus I don't think you play this game.

You asked for criticism, and he posted valid criticism. You told him he should post elsewhere. Of course, you can ignore that all you want.

Since I don't agree with you I figured you'd say that. I was hoping for a rational discussion and finding middle ground, but you don't want that. There's a big surprise.

I play regularly. I pay the same $14.95 you do. So you are completely wrong. I play and HoHun does not. Most months since I came back I average 30 plus hours. Got it? So don't go thinking you play and I don't and that makes your views the only ones worth considering. Because you are completely wrong.

Oh, and I'm not so paranoid as to think HTC is conspiring against me or my favorite plane. You hold that honor.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #27 on:** May 30, 2004, 09:23:41 AM »

Oh, and by the way, Straffo, I have been posting AGAINST planes cruising at military power (one of your big complaints) since before there was an AH I, never mind AH II, and WAY back into Air Warrior. There is likely common ground, and I am looking for it. Of course if you aren't, and just want more range and loiter time, well, then so be it.

Munkii · « **Reply #28 on:** May 30, 2004, 10:57:28 AM »

How about percentage of fuel available has no effect on amount of fuel you get.. how about it affectes a percentage of the range available at full tanks?? 125% means you get 100% of your full range plus DT's... 75% means you get 75% of your full range a mil power at sea level worth of fuel.. so if you had a 100 mile range regardless of gallons used you could now go 75.. and so on. That way planes with historical range could go light but not carry DT's.. the smaller planes could go %'s of their range. That way when it's down to 25%.. both can go 25% of their max.. if the P51 can go further than the Bf109 then it's by fault of the designer not by HTC.

Tilt · « **Reply #29 on:** May 30, 2004, 11:02:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts

Military fuel rationing doesn't work that way. And in fact, in World War II there were different ration cards for different civilians as well.

I think this is a valid point............ but I do not think it is rationalised by the % approach eaither................ neither are able to prioritise mission values.

of the two (actual fuel rationing and % fuel rationing) I believe actual to be more valid........however the detail model should not overly penalise various models.

Infact the ideal "military" system is one that allocates fuel on the basis of endurance....... ( a third option)

eg lets assume that a field with full fuel can grant any ac sufficient fuel for 5000 miles of endurance at cruise speed. (of course this is more fuel than many ac can carry)

At 50 % attrition each plane can have sufficient fuel for 2500 miles

At 90 % attrition each plane can have sufficient fuel for 500 miles.

We might set the max attrition to 95% so that all ac have a cruise range of 250 miles (at FBM 1).

hence our P51 would see the fuel attrition bite into its upper fuel load possibilites before the yak is effected but it would always have the same or greater endurance potential as the yak.

I think this would approach the "military" point you make better than either actual or % fuel allocation models.

(basically as a base loses fuel resources its absolute operational range is reduced equally across all models, although that absolute limit may be actually beyond the range of some models anyway)

I think given the E6B code now exists within the AH code this method is possible........I wonder how easily its application would be understood by the players.

I thought it may be overly complex.........