Author Topic: Reduced Ranges  (Read 5661 times)

Offline dedalos

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8052
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #195 on: March 01, 2006, 04:09:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Increased fuel burn is to give differentiation between long ranged and short range aircraft.  If fuel burn was at real levels there would be no reason for the long ranged American and Japanese fighters.


I don't think people are flying 51s or NIKIs because of their range
Quote from: 2bighorn on December 15, 2010 at 03:46:18 PM
Dedalos pretty much ruined DA.

Offline Oldman731

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9418
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #196 on: March 01, 2006, 04:15:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Oldman,

>Well, geez, HoHun, you can join right now.  In Axis v Allies arena we run fuel burn rates of 1.0, sometimes 1.2.  Welcome back!

Wow, thanks, that's great news! And I always liked Axis vs. Allies best, too :-) Where can I learn more about the settings you are using?

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Well, you could browse the threads in the AvA arena, or you could get someone to send you the current MOTD.  Generally, we have fuel burn of 1.0 or 1.2; ack reduced to .25 (or below) from the MA's 1.0 standard; and other settings that vary (we're experimenting with killshooter being off, for example, and we often fuss with the number of troops required to take a base, things like that).

- oldman

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #197 on: March 01, 2006, 04:16:03 PM »
Toad,

I have a chart that shows a weight loss of 1,000LBS = approximately 1 minute of climb time to 20K. The chart is for the F4U but I can reasonably assume that roughly the same would apply for the P-51, P-38 and P-47 etc.

As far as the AH P-51 I am not certain of the climb rates/times because I do not know what weight the performance charts are based on in AH. I would have to test them.

I can tell you that the F4U-1 at Mil power will climb to 20K in 8minutes at 12000lbs at an average of 2500FPM. At 11,000LBS it will make the climb in 7minutes at an average climb of 2857FPM at Mil power. AT combat power this number would reduce close to 6 minutes.

I would expect the same gain of roughly 350FPM from any aircraft loosing 1,000lbs.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #198 on: March 01, 2006, 10:00:31 PM »
F4, I guess my question is does in game weight loss equate to your charts?

Does the F4-U in the game increase climb rate roughly equal to what your actual charts indicate?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline F4UDOA

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1731
      • http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index.html
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #199 on: March 02, 2006, 09:49:06 PM »
Toad,

I would say yes although not a great result.

Yes you do gain about 300FPM from the loss of 1,000lbs in the F4U which BTW equates almost exactly to 1/2 fuel 1/2 ammo. However the climb time for the F4U-1D in AH is already a bit slow to 20,000FT by about 30 seconds. It may not seem like much but the loss is really above 10K I would say so it is in a short climb span and the thing barely climb anyway so it looks even worse.

So in short it does realize the gain but in the end the times don't quite match the charts although it is very hard to pin point.

F4U-1D 50% Fuel/Ammo -1061lbs
Gross weight= 11,114LBS

Mil power time to 20K= 7:31
Combat power to 20K= 6:38

Test method takeoff fuel burn=1 takeoff immediately retract gear level reach climb speed 150TAS MPH and hit auto climb start watch.

Here is the chart I am speaking of. It is from the manual. It is the second line from the bottom. It really is more than a 1 minute gain, it appears at that weight it should reach 20K in a hair over 7 minutes at mil power. Combat power should be over 1 minute better than that and it is not.

 
« Last Edit: March 02, 2006, 09:53:01 PM by F4UDOA »

Offline republic

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #200 on: March 06, 2006, 01:27:17 PM »
The increased fuel burn is very important.  The 2x fuel burn, among other things, ensures that you must choose carefully your loadout.  Without the higher burn, you'd be pressed to need drop tanks, unless you were escorting bombers.  

Proper fuel management should be something a pilot must think of in AH.  It should not be 100% throttle 100% of the time until you run dry.  Pilots should be forced to get to know thier aircraft...otherwise this wouldn't be a sim...
P-47 pilot

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #201 on: March 06, 2006, 02:05:33 PM »
Hi Republic,

I see you are new to board - welcome and thanks for your contribution! :-)

>Proper fuel management should be something a pilot must think of in AH.  It should not be 100% throttle 100% of the time until you run dry.  Pilots should be forced to get to know thier aircraft...otherwise this wouldn't be a sim...

Well, I could agree with this goal, but my concern is that the increased fuel burn actually won't help to achieve it.

It's a game, and people will rather fly at full throttle half the time in order to get a kill and die than fly at reduced throttled for twice the time.

(You will have a hard time to convince players that flying straight and level at reduced throttle is a thrill, and most people are in this game for the thrill.)

So the reason that I disagree with an increased fuel burn is not so much that I think people should be flying around at 100% throttle for 100% of the time (I don't!), but that the concept of increased fuel burn will fail to achieve its goal.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline toon

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #202 on: March 09, 2006, 01:51:31 PM »
i like the idea of having gas in the flying machines.i like it even better that i can have as much as i want or $14.95 a month.S~ all and remember to tip the petrol truck drivers.

Offline 68slayr

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 712
Reduced Ranges
« Reply #203 on: March 21, 2006, 09:01:38 PM »
leave it as it is.  The La-7 is not a long range fighter.  Use the P-51 if u wanna go far.  If u do wanna go as far as u can in the La-7 stay at 5-10k.