Reduced Ranges

[HoHun]

Hi Goob,

>Without the multiplier you will almost always run out of ammo or die before you run out of gas.

*I* won't.

And my opinion of the fighting skills of someone who needs a fuel multiplier to save him from certain death is rather unfavourable.

>Anyone who can't stretch their fuel to cover a very long and successfull mission isn't doing it right.

Up there is my mission profile. It's not even "very long", but rather the minimum. Tried to stretch your fuel to meet that before you posted here? If you didn't, *you* aren't doing it right.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[bozon]

Hi HoHun,
I believe the FBM contributes to gameplay and in an indirect way, to realizm too. It seems to be HT's view as well.

If you claim FBM = 2 is too much, the claim may have some merit, but FBM = 1 is too low. Nobody said 2 is the golden number and must be so. It used to be 1.5, but after remodeling the fuel consumption on all planes HT changed it to 2 - most likely since you could also stretch your endurance better than before.

A good FBM compromise should be low enough to allow a reasonable typical mission profile in the MA in the shortest legged plane (lets assume a yak) taking into account reasonable fuel management (aka, not firewalling the trottle from takeoff till landing). It should be high enough as to require 100% fuel on the smallest tank planes (this will NOT make them heavier than the opposition measured in lbs). Higher FBM will also require fuel management from gas hogs like the american radials and twin engined planes unless they want to be extra heavy (and that "extra" grows linearly with FBM, for the same flight duration).

I for one would not like to see P51/38/47s on 25% fuel flying for 40 min at full throttle.

What do you suggest? 1.8 1.6 1.5? Give a good reason for the value chosen and I will support it. Maybe even HT will listen if you give a good argument for the exact value.

Bozon

[HoHun]

Hi Bozon,

>I believe the FBM contributes to gameplay and in an indirect way, to realizm too.

What it takes for realism:

1.) Boelcke's Dicta: Secure all possible advantages before attacking.

2.) Darwin's Dicta: Don't die.

Subtract all of the missions that violated one of the two Dictae, and there won't be any "typical MA mission profiles" left because adherence to the most basic real-world tactics will be enough to make your mission profile *un*typical.

Now what does the fuel multiplier do? Simple - it eliminates the player's choice in the matter of what mission profile he prefers.

>What do you suggest? 1.8 1.6 1.5?

I'm not here to haggle. When it comes to primary flight parameters, there is only one way to achieve realism, and that's "make it like it was in real life".

If you were interested in exactly how much quantified unrealism I might let you get away with, you could simply figure it out with the mission profile I outlined above ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Kev367th]

OK so by your mission profile you fly around a 100 mile round trip + loiter/fighting time over target.

As your talking about 'real mission profiles' -
Squadron ups from a base in England flies 100 miles to target in Germany, does their stuff and flies home.
Thats a 200 mile round trip + loiter/fighting time.

Where's the difference?
Yours is 100 miles @ 2 FBM
Theirs is 200 miles @ 1 FBM

Yours is 1/2 the distance at double the fuel burn, sounds right to me.

200 miles is probably under estimated, it wasn't until D-Day and beyond that this would have been dramtically shorter.

Oh, and I fly a Tiffy in the MA which with it's ord or (but not both) DT's is really hamstrung with the current 2 FBM.
If bases were 100+ miles apart, there'd be even more complaining.

Think you'll be more happy playing T.O.D. when it comes out.

[Saxman]

So basically, your argument comes down to "I want to be able to fly the way *I* want to fly and to hell with everybody else."

There HAS to be a trade-off. Would I PREFER things to be more sim than Air Quake? Heck YES. I'd LOVE to have 1:1 scale maps with a 1 FBM, with high-altitude engagements, and real historical use of fighters and bombers (bye bye Buff-stuka's and airborne AAA). The problem as has been mentioned ad nauseum is that SOME things HAVE to be altered for playability. A 1:1 scale map would be prohibitively large for the casual players (how many Air Quakers would want to fly for an hour just to REACH the target). That reason ALONE is why the FBM is a necessary concession. Play on a condensed map, condense endurance

There's also not a whole lot of action at 20,000ft to begin with. Except for the odd high-alt buff raid I've seen VERY little consistent fighting around 20k in the time I've been here (maybe three or four times I've been patrolling high against buffs in the stratosphere and while ranging out I've encountered another fighter). All that means is when you get to target you've got a LONG descent before you're engaging (by which point you're also in serious overspeed).

It's a fact that serious sim people HAVE to deal with.

[g00b]

HoHun,

With the current fuel multiplier I have no problem expending all my ammo and racking up numerous kills every flight.  I like the fuel multiplier because it forces people to fight, to be more aggressive. Which is what the MA is all about.


This statement I do not understand?

"And my opinion of the fighting skills of someone who needs a fuel
multiplier to save him from certain death is rather unfavourable."

No multiplier is easier I think. FBx2 you have to make every drop count. How a FB multiplier saves one from certain death is beyond me.

Anyhooo... I understand what you are saying. I too want a full realism arena.  I love SEA events. I like the MA too, but I can't wait for TOD.

[Bruno]

What do you suggest? 1.8 1.6 1.5? Give a good reason for the value chosen and I will support it. Maybe even HT will listen if you give a good argument for the exact value.

1 but absent that 1.5 was used for sometime and there's no comment on it at all. It wasn't until they increased the FBM to x 2 that these threads popped up.

[Kev367th]

I think 2 x FBM came in with AH2 Beta and stayed.

Shortly after AH2 went 'live' the min fuel pork of 75% was introduced, up from its previous 25%.

Even though seperate I have always felt they went hand in hand, and were intended as such.

After all how long would an La7 last with 25% fuel at 2 x FBM.

[bozon]

btw, I just tried the Yak9u offline with FBM=2. with 100% fuel at full throttle it's 27 min. With settings rated as "normal" it's over 33 min. Cruising this way, range is over 160 miles.

What amazed me is that even with "normal" setting it still climbed better and flew faster that my jug (D11) at full throttle and 75% fuel - that last only 25(!) min at full throttle. In addition 75% of D11 is 228 gallons, while 100% of yak is 139 gallons. That's 89 gallons or 800 lbs of extra fuel, for less flight time and less performance...

Thank you very much, now my sweat D11 really seems like crap!

Bozon

[straffo]

Bozon try something more difficult  : the Typhoon.

[HoHun]

Hi Kev,

>OK so by your mission profile you fly around a 100 mile round trip + loiter/fighting time over target.

I don't even talk about distances. When you're out hunting, you don't care about distances - there's you, your target, and the speed difference to the target.

To catch your target, you need time. How much time you need doesn't depend on the size of the map at all.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Saxman,

>So basically, your argument comes down to "I want to be able to fly the way *I* want to fly and to hell with everybody else."

You can't be possibly talking about my argument? This would be a major misunderstanding as I pointed out that I prefer to have the *choice* of opting for realistic mission profiles. It would be those who limit endurance who limit the spectrum of mission profiles.

>There's also not a whole lot of action at 20,000ft to begin with.

This doesn't really mean anything as it might well be caused by the current endurance limits :-) Besides, I'm not flying at 20000 ft because I expect the main furball to be up there.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Goob,

>With the current fuel multiplier I have no problem expending all my ammo and racking up numerous kills every flight.  

If your handle is "g00b", you landed 4 out of 13 sorties last Tour. You rack up the kills, yes, but you violate Darwin's Dicta: "Don't die".

>This statement I do not understand?

>>"And my opinion of the fighting skills of someone who needs a fuel
multiplier to save him from certain death is rather unfavourable."

It means that I think that if you expect to die before you run out of fuel at FBM 1, you're not a good fighter pilot.

>Anyhooo... I understand what you are saying. I too want a full realism arena.  

Glad we have something to agree on :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[HoHun]

Hi Bozon,

>Thank you very much, now my sweat D11 really seems like crap!

The Soviets got about 200 lend-lease P-47D aircraft and did not like them at all. I'm not sure about the reasons, but the thirst for high-octane fuel and the need for long, firm runways probably had something to do with it, but of course they also compared performance to the light Soviet fighters they were used to.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[RAPIER]

Not being an aircraft expert, I do know that the Japanese and American planes all had much more endurance overall than the European planes.  During the Battle of Britain, the LW could only fight over England for a very short time before they were in trouble with fuel.
They didn't have the range, and the Brits didn't need it to fight at home.
Fighting in the Pacific, and escorting bombers in any theater needed endurance, and they had it.  So, the fuel multiplier makes sense in a reduced size war zone like the MA.  Who wants to fly for 2 or 3 hours to get to the battle area?  Not me!