Author Topic: Worst stuff in AH2--fuel burning rate (Read 1388 times)

ghi · « **on:** October 07, 2004, 06:04:52 PM »

I play AH2 since came out, i like it, but i think the fuel burn rate has the worst ,most annoying settings.
If the 8'' gun and SB has better range than some of the planes with 75%-100% fuel, why did they need planes in WW2??
Many times i'm in fun,hot fights, still having amo but have to run because of the fuel.
I feel like having seex, but someone take my fun, b4 the climax.

Mister Fork · « **Reply #1 on:** October 07, 2004, 07:44:40 PM »

Stop huggin the ground. Your fuel burn rate drastically reduces as you climb altitude.

Fruda · « **Reply #2 on:** October 07, 2004, 08:14:43 PM »

But really, fuel burn shouldn't be at 2... Flight times are too damn short in Spitfires, among others.

Kweassa · « **Reply #3 on:** October 07, 2004, 08:41:53 PM »

I don't see any problems.

Fuel management is a must for short legged planes, and the roles of the planes differ according to their flight time. It really makes planes with larger fuel load shine out in comparison with the short-ranged planes.

However, I do agree that there should be something done about configurations like 50% fuel + DTs. While some US planes(particularly the Mustang) made use out of such settings, most of the WW2 fighter airforce would never use something like that.

If a certain plane shines out in fuel endurance, then consequentially it should also suffer the problems of having a heavy fuel load.

humble · « **Reply #4 on:** October 07, 2004, 09:15:59 PM »

Don't see any issue either, use EB6 to lengthen your "legs"...also learn to fly other planes...in my "normal" ride I take 75% and no DT and never run out of fuel (well almost)...it has the added plus of being able to fight any plane in the plane set 1 on 1 with no problem:).

Stang · « **Reply #5 on:** October 07, 2004, 09:20:22 PM »

Disappointing whine from an la7 jock. 3/10

ghi · « **Reply #6 on:** October 07, 2004, 10:36:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stang
Disappointing whine from an la7 jock. 3/10

yes,yes i'm La7 dweeb,
but they screw my little plane with fuel burn rate in AH2,

Why to drive a Neon if i can drive a Corvette for the same money?
Fuel management, and that watching E6B takes the fun out of the game, the fuel burning rate is too far from reality ,was perfect in AH1,why to waste soo much time with take off and landings ?
What plane of WW2 did't have better range than 8'' gun?

SFCHONDO · « **Reply #7 on:** October 08, 2004, 01:31:49 AM »

Well alot of flyiers would like to see the LA7 totally gone from the game. Be happy you have one to fly. Shorter time between rearms is better than no LALA at all for ya.

hogenbor · « **Reply #8 on:** October 08, 2004, 02:36:15 AM »

I usually fly the P-51B so not that much of a problem...

BUT I live in Europe, meaning that there are much less people logged in when I play, and consequently, I have to fly for longer to find a fight.

I have to say that I liked the AH1 multiplier better.

Rolex · « **Reply #9 on:** October 08, 2004, 04:13:14 AM »

In reality, pilots in WWII could not re-up immediately after being killed either. Do I understand correctly that you also don't want to take off and land?

The game is very much like life in that reasonable people try to find workable compromises. In this case, the game designers try to keep the game fun for as many people as possible. And players try to find or create some fun within the compromises.

There weren't too many on-the-deck furballs pitting La-7s against N1ks, P-51s, Typhoons, Spitfires, F6Fs and now Me-163s (the latest furballing plane on some maps) in WWII anyway.

Hammy · « **Reply #10 on:** October 08, 2004, 06:10:53 AM »

Edit for flame.

Stang · « **Reply #11 on:** October 08, 2004, 06:30:51 AM »

I kill lalas just fine, but I really don't like the fuel burn rate either.

Hammy · « **Reply #12 on:** October 08, 2004, 06:34:34 AM »

Quote

I kill lalas just fine

wasnt a personal attack bud, was a general statement

flyingaround · « **Reply #13 on:** October 08, 2004, 08:17:08 AM »

I would also like to see HT try a 1.8 or 1.9 fuel burn rate. Uping' a lala, or a spit, and geting 20min flight time sux. If you have to lift off, and protect a field w/ incom. nme's close by, you lift off with 100% and you are at a serious disad. being hvy w/ fuel. I would like to see a slight tweak.

SlapShot · « **Reply #14 on:** October 08, 2004, 08:26:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hammy
and i thought the planes were supposed to be modelled like the real thing in flight characteristics! whos been lying to me all this time????????

The fuel burn rate is BS and further from correct modelling as u can get, nuff said.

it was done to appease you whiners who cant kill an la7

Well then you have to take it to the next step ...

If all things were modeled correctly, it really should take us a MUCH longer period of time to get to the fighting front. In RL, opposing airbases were not 25 miles or less apart.

So if we were to bring the fuel burn rate back to 1, then to simultate RL fuel modeling, we would have to fly distances like they flew from the UK to France and back to get into some action and then RTB ... sound like fun ? ... not to me it doesn't.

Now if we were to drop the burn rate back to 1, then a P-51 could effectively fly all the way across a map and back with a full tank of gas. So, would that appear to be realistic when one could fly over dozens of airbases on 1 tank of gas ... I don't think so.

Because our fighting area is condensed, so that we don't get bored, the fuel burn rate was also condensed to simulate the real flight time one would have in this ficticious world we fly in.

I am sure that if we all would put up with flights, like from London to Paris and back, HTC would be more than willing to change the burn rate back to 1, but some how I don't think that that is going to happen.

People asked for more real modeling and they got it ... but the world we fly in in not real, so adjustments to reality need to be made ... the change was not due to anyone whining.