Author Topic: 163 (Read 838 times)

Pooface · « **on:** July 03, 2005, 11:27:28 AM »

i came across a problem that needs to be fixed with the 163. first off, the rev counter doesnt work. now i know that the engine didnt rotate in real life, but there is no way to tell the output power of the engine (very annoying). there is also a lack of fuel tank, which also means that the plane is uneffected by fuel burn rate. now i know that these are both like this for a reason, but there are easier ways to get around those problems. just make the rev counter work (i know its unrealistic but this is a game), and create a fuel tank so that the plane can be effected by fuel burn. HTC this would make me very happy, and im sure a few others too

it will also mean that the 163's can be damaged in the same way as other planes

Simaril · « **Reply #1 on:** July 04, 2005, 10:16:23 AM »

Well, not quite the same way. Would it be reasnable to expect that the 163's toxic soup might make its fuel tank a bit more likely to instantaneously immolate?

RTSigma · « **Reply #2 on:** July 04, 2005, 01:13:30 PM »

I thought the 163 was either full throttle or off.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #3 on:** July 04, 2005, 03:44:59 PM »

Maybe I'm missing something but the 163's I fly have a fuel tanks and are fully throttleable.

Karnak · « **Reply #4 on:** July 04, 2005, 04:17:04 PM »

The 163 has it's fule done differently than the other fighters. It uses it's correct fuel burn, I believe, because if it was at 2x fuel burn it would be useless. Therefor is it had it's correct fuel burn at 2x and was affected by the fuel burn multiplier it would have twice the fuel endurance it should have at feul burn 1x.

Pooface · « **Reply #5 on:** July 06, 2005, 08:57:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The 163 has it's fule done differently than the other fighters. It uses it's correct fuel burn, I believe, because if it was at 2x fuel burn it would be useless. Therefor is it had it's correct fuel burn at 2x and was affected by the fuel burn multiplier it would have twice the fuel endurance it should have at feul burn 1x.

try going offline. set fuel burn to 0.01, and fly it. you still get 5 mins. now open the damage list. if there is no fuel tank listed, thats ure problem. the 163 model has no fuel tank, so is unaffected by fuel burn. the engine is throttleable, but has no dang tank, and id just lke that to get updated

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #6 on:** July 06, 2005, 09:13:06 AM »

To what end? Just because the fuel tank is not listed on the damaged item list does not negate obserable fact that it has a fuel system. I would imagine that a fuel tank hit in a 163 would almost certainly be a fatal hit , hence not on the damage list. If you get it listed as a damageble item what are you achieving for that effort? Would those efforts be better spent on other aspects of the game?

Karnak · « **Reply #7 on:** July 06, 2005, 10:04:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pooface
try going offline. set fuel burn to 0.01, and fly it. you still get 5 mins. now open the damage list. if there is no fuel tank listed, thats ure problem. the 163 model has no fuel tank, so is unaffected by fuel burn. the engine is throttleable, but has no dang tank, and id just lke that to get updated

That was my very point. If it was subject to fuel burn it would be useless in the MA.

I tried what you suggested the day it was added to AH.

dedalos · « **Reply #8 on:** July 06, 2005, 10:37:07 AM »

I think he is pracktising.

Almost there, you got a few this time. You need to make it sound a little more like a whine though, unless your intent was to make it look reall

AKDogg · « **Reply #9 on:** July 06, 2005, 11:36:43 AM »

Even though there is no fuel tank, there is fuel burn. Lastnight I was flying a 163 got up to alt (20K) and just chopped throttle. I checked E6B and my miles and fuel rate changed. Therefore Fuel burn is modeled in 163 as far as I see. I got 12 mins of flight time after I climbed to 20K and set throttle to 25%.

Pooface · « **Reply #10 on:** July 06, 2005, 11:37:48 AM »

well it was kinda both ded

i was trying to ask a serious request tho, that the rev counter should work, or if u want it 'real', do it in lb's of thrust. just make the rev counter count i say, its easier than creating a thrust indicator. i hate setting my throttl by looking at the e6b constantly

Pooface · « **Reply #11 on:** July 06, 2005, 11:39:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MwDogg
Even though there is no fuel tank, there is fuel burn. Lastnight I was flying a 163 got up to alt (20K) and just chopped throttle. I checked E6B and my miles and fuel rate changed. Therefore Fuel burn is modeled in 163 as far as I see. I got 12 mins of flight time after I climbed to 20K and set throttle to 25%.

yes, fuel burn is same as any other plane. i was saying that it isnt affected by fuel burn multiplyer, so if you want some fun in the h2h place, u get temps with unlimited fuel but not 163's

SlapShot · « **Reply #12 on:** July 06, 2005, 11:53:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pooface
yes, fuel burn is same as any other plane. i was saying that it isnt affected by fuel burn multiplyer, so if you want some fun in the h2h place, u get temps with unlimited fuel but not 163's

No offense intended, but for the most part, 163s in H2H land are for the lame.

Pooface · « **Reply #13 on:** July 06, 2005, 02:19:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot
No offense intended, but for the most part, 163s in H2H land are for the lame.

i know, and i hardly ever go in there, but its the principle that the plane has an 'incomplete' model. all im saying is that the rev counter should actually work, and that the plane should have a fuel tank. of course, there are reasons for not having the tank to save on fuel, but atleast make the stupid instruments work right

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #14 on:** July 06, 2005, 02:22:35 PM »

Speaking of working instruments, am I mistaken or is the climb rate indicator way off on the 163?