Dynamic fuel multiplier

[MANDO]

Currently we have a x2 multiplier based on the short range between bases, so it is less time consuming to travel from base to base. But we also have real climb rates and the performance of planes is adjusted to real performance at real heights.

So, when traveling from base A to base B at fast speed, it seems correct to use a x2 multiplier to compensate the short distance. But when climbing from 0 to 20k it would be incorrect to use x2 multiplier as you spend the same time to alt as in real world.

There is a difference between traveling from base to base and climbing: the speed.

I would propose the following system:

Any plane traveling at or below its optimum climb speed, and with auto-climb engangend, uses arena setting / 2 multiplier (usually X1). Any plane traveling faster than its optimum climb speed or with(edit: out) auto-climb (in fact, auto-speed) enganged, uses arena setting fuel multiplier (usually X2), so the multiplier is adjusted dinamically depending on the speed and the auto-climb(speed) option.

As an example, a F4U1D would use X1 multiplier as long as it keeps below 160 mph while climbing in auto and X2 above this speed or when auto-speed is dissenganged.

[Krusty]

This has been one of my beefs for a long time about high fuel burn rates.

It's an interesting idea, but somewhat complex. I don't think it'll be practical to code.

[AWwsky]

Your speed does not dictate how much or how little fuel you burn.  It's dependent on engine settings (RPMs/Manifold/Mixture) and flight conditions such as head or tail winds.

Remember, speed does not have anything to do with the amount of fuel you use. The higher your RPM's/Manifold pressure, the more fuel you use, and since wind is not a factor in AH at this time, there is no effect from that.  Time to climb and engine settings go hand in hand.  More power to climb faster with more fuel used and less speed.  Heading into the wind equals higher power settings to maintain your speed causing more fuel to be used while with a tail wind you would use a lower power setting to keep the same speed using less fuel.

Wsky

[Krusty]

What he's saying is that fuel burn at 2.0 is meant to cope with shorter distances than in real life. This means things are closer but you can fly for a shorter time.

he's also saying that this only compensates for the 2-dimensional distances between points. It does not take into acount the 3rd dimension (altitiude, and time to alt, etc). While it compresses the distances laterally, it also compresses them vertically (which is not what AH2 is actually trying to do with fuel burn at 2.0), and he is trying to devise a way to keep short flight times (to compensate for such close bases) but not penalize time-to-alt because you run out of gas before you get any alt.


Fuel burn is only a 2D solution, for a 3D problem. The 3d solution is larger maps with further bases, so you don't need 2.0 fuel burn. But too many whiners out there for that to work (they all whined before to get the close bases they now have!)

[Kirin]

Mando, good thinking. I always "felt" the fuel multiplyer was wrong despite close distances but never knew why!

Yup, your solution sounds reasonable but I guess it won't happen...

[Ghosth]

Easy solution.

Forget the fuel multiplier. (which won't happen btw)

Go to 1:1 scale maps, and fuel burn 1.0

Change grid to 50 miles instead of 25.

Put airfields farther apart  at 300 mph you can fly 50 miles in 10 min.

This should help "string out" the endless hordes, give defenders a better chance to use gaps in coverage to get up.

All of the above would work but it would
"Slow down" the MA's frantic pace. People would have to be a bit more patient.
Hence I don't see it happening anytime soon. Maybe for TOD