Reduced Ranges

[straffo]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
Straffo,

As even someone with your genius intellent can see the playing field is so badly slanted toward American Aircraft that exactly two of them are in the top ten and one of them is perked.

Except for the 51 (with  the FBM set at 2) you can't pretend I've a bias against the American planes.
So far your beloved F4U would benefit from a FBM at 1.

You should try flying a box of tissues for all of the crying you are doing

Maybe the next thread can be about unlimited ammunition since that is also unfair, no?  [/B]

I'm in a good mood tonight so I'll not jump of your butt (in fact I pretty amused by your post )

[g00b]

What a bunch of freakin whiners!

Where's the b*tch slap emoticon?

It all boils down to this...

I can fly any plane, to any conflict, and shoot at guys 'till I run out of ammo, BEFORE I go bingo.

Nope, there's no 3 hour loiter with the current FBM, but who needs it? I think many folks are really confused about what the current MA is all about.

Repeat after me:

It's NOT about realistic engagements.
It's NOT about realistic engagements.
It's NOT about realistic engagements.

Get it?

What it IS about.

FUN!

The MA is set up for those who enjoy the fight! The pure unadaulterated act of furballing. Where you can get into a good fight within 5-10 minutes of logging in and enjoy the highest fidelity flight models of any WWII sim. It's all about the mechanics of the fight itself.

It's for those whose break into a grin as they dive into a whirling mass of lead, flames and aircraft. It's NOT for those who think, hmm, I might die if I go in there, I better just stay out here and pick off stragglers. That's who the the CT, SEA, and eventually TOD is for.

Realism is "long stretches of boredom punctuated by short stretches of sheer terror". Who's going to pay for long stretches of boredom when you can get the sheer terror without it?

g00b

[Airscrew]

we interupt this thread for an unschedule chuckle

You should try flying a box of tissues for all of the crying you are doing  

we now return you to your regularly schedule thread

[Saxman]

It's sort of redundant to say the F4U would benefit from an FBM of 1, because, at least as far as range is concerned, EVERY plane does.

Anyway, I assume maybe you're refering to the later Hogs without the extra gas in the wings, so I'll repost what I said on Page 2:

F4U-1 at 50% gas and drop tank is ~ = C/D/4 at 75% gas w/ ONE drop tank. After a climb to 10k alt, dialing down to ~35" MAP and ~2100RPM gives a range of ~300mi (combat radius ~150 mi) and 90min flight time. This would be INCREASED at 100% with BOTH tanks (it would more or less end up equivilant to F4U-1 at 100% with one tank). Either way, that's still an impressive combat radius for the MA.

My point is that:

1) The F4U wouldn't need the 1 FBM

2) FD has already indicated that FBM is inconsequential to him as he already practices fuel management.

So why keep dangling the carrot out there when the rabbit's not biting?

[F4UDOA]

Straffo,

Thankyou:aok

You are right, the F4U would benifit from the fbm at 1 but neven fly that way in the MA anyway.

I am off of ranting for a while

==Weenie mode off==

[HoHun]

Hi Hitech,

>Because of the shorter distances no one is force to fly distances at cruise power settings. At 2.5 most planes were forced to lower power quite often.

For the case the fuel multiplier is raised, I predict that statistics will show a drop in the total number of landings, a slight increase in the number of sorties and a drop in average mission time.

Players will still continue to fly at 100%, but that probably won't show up in the statistics directly.

Obviously, there are many players who do not care about landing after getting a kill or two in their sortie. With the fuel multiplier set high, these players have two to three times the combat persistance of players, which is enough of an incentive to make this behaviour dominant.

If you mean to land your sorties, the higher the fuel multiplier, the greater the percentage you'll have to keep in reserve, and the more time is spent shuttling between combat area and safe second line base. This will strongly discourage players from flying for survival.

(The impact of the one-way players is increased by their relatively higher combat persistance. The time other players spend flying back to their bases to land they spend in combat.)

With a high proportion of the players in combat using full throttle without limitations, those players who would prefer to land their sorties will be left with no choice but to got to full  throttle, too, in order to stay competitive offensively as well as defensively.

(Insert eloquent conclusion here.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Golfer]

Requiring players to actually use engine management rather than just leaving the power at full until it runs out of gas would be a good reason to disregard the FBM.  Or even keep the FBM as is (which is fine)

That for me would take away from the fun.  If I want to manage an engine I'll fly more trips...if I want to have fun and not worry and have a pseudo "relaxed realism" where fighting tactics and aerodynamics play a role...I'll play AH.

Where we are now is a good balance and compromise between ultimate realism and lifelike playable fun.

[Tilt]

Harry eastern front bases were not normally 25 miles apart and the FBM 2 would be an attempt to simulate fuel management needs at 50 miles.

Actually the GPW air war was mainly over or just behind the battle field not constantly about enemy airfield suppression so 50 miles to combat zone would be a little more reasonable in GPW terms.

F4uDOA..

FBM2 has nothing to do with vulching.................

What has the country of origin got to do with any thing..........should we be configuring stuff to balance Italian planes more?  

FBM2 has nothing to do with country of origin...........

No gameplay balancer has/should(IMO) have anything to do with country of origin..............

I also remember AHII beta at FBM 1.5 (maybe before  the rpm/MP/fuel consumption was fully set)

I do not rem FBM2.5 and so think it was for a very short period.


I see HT's point re pre combat speed and bounce and the cruise/mil power choice.

I do not think it is the result achieved........what is achieved is shorter endurance at mil power plus maybe the odd limp home at cruise or less to make a landing.

I think that if HT really wants to bring about historic patrol speeds rather than maintained combat speeds then it has to consider some engine temperature managment effects v altitude, rpm and MP. It would certainly strike at the usefullness of the Yaks and Lavochkins as they required near constant alertness to engine temperature

[HoHun]

Hi Goob,

>It's NOT about realistic engagements.

>Get it?

>What it IS about.

>FUN!

I like the clear message in that :-)

In fact, I suspect that for some people the fuel multiplier realism argument just serves to justify an emotional decision long after it has been made.

However, while I'm not going to believe the rationalization, I'll accept an emotional decision on a gaming issue as fully justified in itself.

Just don't forget that different people have different ideas of fun, and a high fuel multiplier is bad for mine.

>Realism is "long stretches of boredom punctuated by short stretches of sheer terror". Who's going to pay for long stretches of boredom when you can get the sheer terror without it?

Hehe, I might not get the amount of action you get, but I bet you don't nearly experience the amount of terror I do when facing impossible odds :-)

What you see as boredom in my eyes is just the calm before the storm, and what you might see as lack of action to my eyes is the building of suspense before the inevitable crisis :-)

So while we disagree on the fuel multiplier itself, I'd say we both have very similar opinions on what makes a good game, except that we both prefer a different pace of the action.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Bruno]

Harry eastern front bases were not normally 25 miles apart and the FBM 2 would be an attempt to simulate fuel management needs at 50 miles.

Actually the GPW air war was mainly over or just behind the battle field not constantly about enemy airfield suppression so 50 miles to combat zone would be a little more reasonable in GPW terms.

Don't you think that it would be best to let the players make that choice? I mean if they choose they can up from a base or two back and 'simulate' whatever distance to the 'front' they want,  as long as the FBM allows them. At x2 it doesn't. Since the AH main has very little to do with actual ww2 air combat it's kind of silly to hear folks use the 'realism' rationalization. It's just as 'unreal' for planes to fly about with 50% fuel and a DT, at max power all the time, as it is with thr front 'simulated' at a consistent 25 miles away.

What has the country of origin got to do with any thing..........should we be configuring stuff to balance Italian planes more?

FBM2 has nothing to do with country of origin...........

No game play balancer has/should(IMO) have anything to do with country of origin..............

You would think that it shouldn't matter. But look at the 'rationalizations' used by those arguing for an FBM of x2:

 'its unfair to force the F4u to fly around with a battleship in tow' etc...'

I also remember AHII beta at FBM 1.5 (maybe before the rpm/MP/fuel consumption was fully set)

I do not rem FBM2.5 and so think it was for a very short period.

It was for a short period at x2.5 and that's about the same time these types of FBM threads began.

I see HT's point re pre combat speed and bounce and the cruise/mil power choice.

I do not think it is the result achieved........what is achieved is shorter endurance at mil power plus maybe the odd limp home at cruise or less to make a landing.

I think that if HT really wants to bring about historic patrol speeds rather than maintained combat speeds then it has to consider some engine temperature management effects v altitude, rpm and MP. It would certainly strike at the usefulness of the Yaks and Lavochkins as they required near constant alertness to engine temperature

An FBM of x2 or higher does little to make 'bounces' more realistic. First folks will most likely stay closer to home or won't bother climbing and heading straight to the fight.
 
Second with icons at 6k yards who will get bounced unaware with reduced power? Only the guy who is AFK, blind or asleep. At 6k yards you have plenty of time to push full power and reach top speed before the engagement.

The only way you could make 'bounces' more 'real' is use some sort of 'overheat scheme' that forces folks to be very conscious of their engine temperature. If you run hot to long you get engine damage. This isn't necessarily real in all instances, but it makes more sense then forcing only part of the AH plane set into 'using' fuel management.

What of bombers under 'fuel management'? They are full power all day and night if they like. If anything this is much more 'unreal' then the 'bounces' in AH.



Hohun,

In fact, I suspect that for some people the fuel multiplier realism argument just serves to justify an emotional decision long after it has been made.

I agree, for some its not so much about the actual FBM as it is about rationalizing the way the FBM is now. If the FBM were at x1.5 some these same folks would be posting here why x1.5 is more 'realistic'.

[Kev367th]

"Overheat scheme"?

And hows that supposed to work, an example -

In AH2 Spit WEP limited to 5 mins because thats what the Air Ministry recommended, but with a proviso that the 5 mins could be exceeded as long as it was reported on landing.

Numerous cases of Spit pilots considerably exceeding '5 mins', in fact the longest one was over 30 mins at FULL WEP.
Yes, he got home without a problem.

So hows your overheat model going to work?

[Bruno]

Have you played FB/AEP/PF? While not perfect it certainly is reasonable.

An 'overheat scheme' doesn't mean the Spitfire engine should burst into flames at 5 min 1 sec. Most planes could exceed the recommended power limits. Mostly emergency power limits were set to increase time between overhauls, to keep as many aircraft in service as possible. Right now in AH you run the Spitfire at emergency power for 5 min then cool down over and over until you run out of fuel. With the K-4 MW-50 for example you have 26 min  / 10 on 5 off. Once MW-50 runs out running at max boost would be hazardous.

All planes had radiator / cowl flaps to manage heat, all planes ran at given power settings to increase range but also maintain engine life. How and when an engine begins to overheat is up the game designer but running an engine for pro-longed periods should result in engine damage, after all we aren't worried about 'engine life' we get a brand new perfectly performing plane every time we spawn. The same arguments being made to justify the high FBM can be made to justify reasonable limits to running while overheated.

As Tilt points out some aircraft were more prone to overheat / engine damage then others. IMHO reasonable balance can be achieved. Not only that, but if we believe that the FBM is being used to bring about more realistic 'bounces' it seems to me you would get better results with an 'overheat scheme' rather then having some planes worry about 'fuel management' while others tool about unaffected.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Kev367th
"Overheat scheme"?

And hows that supposed to work, an example -

So hows your overheat model going to work?

Well (good idea or not)  how would you make one work for a sample Spit?

For sure Spit pilots did not fly around at mil power and engine temperature did figure somewhere in the scheme of things..............

Its got to be simple to coad

Simple to play the game with (auto on off function like combat trim?) overideable with appropriate risk (none or significant) depending upon ac type............... or such like.

You can see what HT wants...........

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Tilt
Well (good idea or not)  how would you make one work for a sample Spit?

For sure Spit pilots did not fly around at mil power and engine temperature did figure somewhere in the scheme of things..............

Its got to be simple to coad

Simple to play the game with (auto on off function like combat trim?) overideable with appropriate risk (none or significant) depending upon ac type............... or such like.

You can see what HT wants...........

Think it was more to do with premature wear than heat, else how could they run for considerably longer than 5 mins. As I said, in one case over 30 mins at full WEP, hardly seems like it was limited by heat.

[Bruno]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Think it was more to do with premature wear than heat, else how could they run for considerably longer than 5 mins. As I said, in one case over 30 mins at full WEP, hardly seems like it was limited by heat.

Not every engine is the same. One might exceed 30 min easily, another may crap out after 5. In a game such randomness will produce nothing but whining. As such a reasonable standard can be set by the game designer one that rules out those 'miracle' planes as well as the duds.